^ 

1 

# 

"^ 
<ii 

1  i 

# 

1 

<«^ 

C/5 

^       ^ 

^ 

J^ 

^v       "-^ 

■^.^ 

0) 

*^      fe 

^ 

o 

^        "^ 

1^ 

^ 

"o       15 

b^ 

C.^           o 

s 

•55            H 

^    1 

r— 1 

®            g 

Q)    C 
;3    O 

5 

'^    ^ 

in  B 

i  g 

k 

-«-* 

Q 

rH        -    4J     < 

^ 

'K 

r^  $-(    CO  p- 

S" 

LO   0)    0)    c 

t 

g' 

^ 

1 

X  -H            + 

% 

CQ  S  < 

A   TREATISE 


MERCERSBURG  THEOLOGY; 


MERCERSBDRG  AND  MODERN  THEOLOGY 


COMPARED. 


BT 

SAMUEL    MILLER. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

FuBLTSHED  BT  S.  R.  FISHER  .&  Co.,  54  North  Sixth  Street. 
1866. 


CONTENTS 


PACK. 

Introduction 11 

CHAPTER    I. 

§  1.  Anthropology 17 

2.  Central  Idea 19 

3.  The  Person  op  Christ 21 

4.  The  Incarnation 22 

5.  Redemption 23 

6.  IIypostatical  Union 23 

7.  The  Life  of  Christ 24: 

8.  Imputation 25 

CHAPTER   11. 

9.  The  Atonement .,>.  26 

10.  Justification 33 

n.  Regeneration 35 

12.  The  New  Creation • 37 

13.  The  Body  of  Christ 42 

CHAPTER  HI. 

14.  The  Sacraments 47 

15.  The  Organic  Law  op  Christianity 43 

16.  The  Church  as  an  Object  of  Faith 54 

17.  The  Church  and  the  Reformation 54 

18.  Romanizing  Tendency 56 


4  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   IV.                                PAGE. 
§19.  The  Office  OF  THE  Mixistry 58 

20.  Objective  Faith. — The  Creed 63 

chapteh  v. 

21.  The  Rule  op  Faith G8 

22.  The  Sacred  Scriptures 71 

23.  Subjective  Faith .' 74 

CHAPTER   VI. 

24.  On  THE  Nature  OP  Evidences 79 

CHAPTER  VII. 

25.  The  Pulpit. — Preaching 96 

26.  The  Altar.— Worship 99 

27.  The  Keys.— Discipline 101 

23.  conpirjiation 103 

29.  The  Witness  of  the  Spirit 106 

CHAPTER   VIII. 

30.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity 109 

31.  The  Distinct  Personalities. — The  Eternal  Son- 

ship 114 

32.  The  Trinity  and  the  Church 119 

33.  The  Church  of  the  Future 122 

Notes 125 


PREFACE, 


I. 

The  want  of  a  Cturcli  literature  of  our  own,  has 
long  since  been  felt,  and  become  a  matter  of  deep 
concern.  Tliere  are  good  reasons  why  this  feeling 
should  exist  in  the  German  Keformed  Church,  and 
should  make  itself  heard  and  understood.  It  means 
something  more  than  a  desire  simply  for  books  writ- 
ten by  ministers  of  our  own  Church.  It  is  a  longing 
for  more,  in  the  various  departments  of  religious 
literature,  of  that  hetter  nature  and  cpiality^  which 
can  alone  be  produced  by  that  peculiar  mode  of 
thinking,  which  underlies  our  distinctive  theology. 
That  is  what  the  feeling  means  and  wants,  if  rightly 
interpreted. 

If  we  were  of  the  same  mind  with  other  surround- 
ing; denominations,  the  case  would  bo  different. 
There  would  then  be  little  room  or  occasion  for  such 
a  feeling.     We  could  conveniently  supply  ourselves 


b  PREFACE. 

from  the  abundant  store  that  others  have  furnished. 
But  we  cannot  be  satisfied  with  what  is  thus  offered 
to  us;  nor  remain  indiiFerent  to  the  imperative  duty 
that  calls  upon  us  to  furnish  our  people  and  their 
children  with  a  different  kind  of  literature.  We 
honestly  and  sincerely  believe  the  teachings  of  our 
own  theology,  and  are  convinced  that  the  prevailing 
religious  literature  of  the  day  is  unsuited  to  our 
wants,  because  of  its  rationalistic  elements,  calcu- 
lated to  enervate  and  undermine  a  sound  religious 
faith.  That  is  putting  the  true  state  of  the  case  in 
few  words. 

11. 
We  here  offer  an  humble  contribution  to  our  de- 
nominational literature.  It  is  designed,  indirectly, 
to  deepen  and  widen  the  feeling  referred  to :  to  show 
how  truly  we  stand  in  need  of  something  better  and 
sounder,  than  is  offered  us  by  most  of  our  modern 
writers.  Those  who  had  fondly  hoped  that  the 
Church  had  again  settled  down  to  the  comfortable 
conviction,  that,  after  all,  there  was  not  much,  if  any, 
essential  difference  between  our  Mercersburg  theology 
and  the  prevailing  popular  theology  of  the  day,  were 
slightly  mistaken. 


PREFACE.  *   7 

To  dispel  this  notion,  if  it  really  existed  to  any  ex- 
tent, and  to  bring  the  subject  fresh  in  review  before 
the  mind  of  the  Church,  wc  felt  induced  to  write  out 
a  clear,  condensed  and  convincing  statement  of  the 
manifold  and  important  points  of  difference  between 
the  two  systems  referred  to. 

To  do  this  successfully,  so  as  to  present  the  whole 
in  one  comprehensive  view  to  the  popular  mind,  and 
carry  conviction  at  every  point,  was  not  an  easy  task, 
*  but  required  much  labor  in  the  way  of  condensing  a 
great  deal  that  would  otherwise  have  filled  a  much 
larger  volume,  but  at  the  expense  of  the  particular  de- 
sign we  had  in  view.  A  larger  book,  or  a  book  encum- 
bered with  notes  and  quotations,  would  not  have  an- 
swered our  purpose  to  preserve  clearly  and  uninter- 
ruptedly the  train  of  thought  that  connects  the  va- 
rious important  subjects  discussed.  If  we  have  suc- 
ceeded in  awakening  a  desire  for  more,  our  object  is 
gained,  and  that  more  will  yet  be  abundantly  fur- 
nished, by  other  and  abler  writers. 

III. 

What  of  Mercersburg  and  Modern  theology  is  pre- 
sented in  these  pages,  is  given  as  it   appeared  to 


8   *  PREFACE. 

our  mind  in  fhe  course  of  our  reading  and  studying 
for  the  last  twenty  years.  We  hold  no  one  but  our- 
self  responsible  for  what  may  be  peculiar  in  their  sub- 
jective apprehension  and  reproduction.  But  we  are 
not  aware  that  we  have  misconstrued  or  misrepre- 
sented the  one  or  the  other  at  a  single  point.  The 
attempt  to  fix  such  a  charge  on  our  production,  es- 
pecially in  reference  to  modern  theology,  when  it  first 
appeared  in  a  series  of  articles  in  the  GtERMAN  Re- 
formed Messenger,  is  admitted  on  all  sides  to 
have  proved  a  signal  failure. 

The  point  at  which  our  treatise  is  open  to  attack, 
we  are  told,  lies  in  the  use  of  the  term  modern 
theology;  which  some  suppose  to  be  too  general 
and  indefinite,  implying  more  than  we  intend  to  ex- 
press, and  is,  therefore,  liable  to  misapprehension. 
It  was  accordingly  suggested  to  us  to  define  it  more 
explicitly  in  the  sense  we  use  it,  to  avoid  future 
misunderstandings. 

It  is  true,  "Modern  Theology,"  like  so  many  other 
modern-isms,  has  not  been  strictly  defined  by  any 
previous  writer;  nor  do  we  think  that  its  friends  and 
admirers  would  care  to  have  it  too  strictly  defined. 
It  is  apt  to  be  stripped  of  its  "  glittering  genera li- 


PREFACE.  •    9 

ties/'  by  tlie  glamor  of  wliich  it  has  found  such 
general  favor.  Its  strict  definition,  moreover,  in- 
volves the  principal  issue  between  it  and  that  theo- 
logy with  which  it  is  here  contrasted.  But  as  we 
use  the  term,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  rather  freely, 
it  may  be  well  enough  to  explain  in  the  outset  more 
distinctly  the  sense  in  which  it  occurs  in  our  book. 

IV. 

To  relieve  the  minds  of  all  whom  it  may  concern, 
we  would  say,  then,  in  the  first  place,  that  those  who 
do  not  hold,  expressly  or  impliedly,  the  peculiar 
views  we  ascribe  to  modern  theology,  need  not 
allow  their  equanimity  to  be  disturbed.  If  they 
themselves  are  very  clear  on  this  point,  then  we  beg 
of  them  to  be  well  assured  that  we  do  not  mean  them 
or  their  theology,  whatever  it  may  be,  or  however 
they  may  choose  to  call  it.  But  a  great  deal  of  the 
prevailing  and  reigning  theology  of  the  day,  as  it 
meets  us  in  every  possible  shape  and  form,  does  hold 
and  teach,  expressly  or  impliedly,  the  very  things  we 
designate  as  modern  theology.  This  cannot  be  de- 
nied. It  is  too  well  known  and  understood  by  every 
body,  to  admit  of  a  denial. . 


10  PREFACE. 

But  wlij  call  it  3I0DERN  THEOLOGY?  For  this 
reason:  because  it  is,  in  its  distinctive  features,  a 
modernism;  modern  in  its  origin  and  conception;  in 
no  true  sympathy  and  connection  with  the  ancient 
faith  and  teachings  of  the  Church,  and  an  actual  de- 
parture from  the  confessional  and  theological  posi- 
tion of  the  Reformation  Churches.  This  is  the  sense 
in  which  we  use  it.  Mercersburg  theology,  on  the 
contrary,  is  a  deeper  and  profounder  apprehension 
and,  therefore,  vindication  of,  and  not  a  departure 
from,  the  faith  and  doctrines  of  the  ancient  Church 
and  the  Reformation.  This  is  the- broad  distinction 
between  them  on  this  point,  as  will  appear  more  fully 
in  the  treatment  of  the  several  subjects,  to  which  the 
reader's  attention  is  directed  in  these  pages. 

With  this  explanation  we  commend  our  book  to  a 
careful  and  thoughtful  perusal,  in  the  hope  that  it 
may  prove  a  "source  of  sound  instruction  and  real 
edification"  to  all  into  whose  hands  it  may  happen 
to  fall. 


INTRODUCTION 


Theology  is  a  human  science,  treating  of  di- 
vine and  supernatural  things.  It  is,  therefore, 
liable  to  fail  in  representing  a  full  apprehension 
of  the  subject  of  which  it  treats,  and  to  em- 
brace views  and  admit  principles,  which,  when 
carried  out  to  their  logical  consequences  by 
merciless  critics,  are  calculated  to  damage  and 
undermine  the  ver}^  cause  of  truth,  in  whose  in- 
terest and  service  they  are  supposed  to  stand. 
It  is  bui  human  to  err.  and  when  our  theology, 
as  a  human  science,  is  found  to  err,  or  to  be 
defective,  it  is  our  duty  to  review  it,  and  to  re- 
produce it  on  more  correct  principles  and  a  pro- 
founder  apprehension  of  its  doctrines.  How 
this  is  to  be  done,  is  itself  a  point  of  difference.- 
to  which  we  may  have  occasion  to  refer. 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

Roman  Catholic  Theology  passed  through 
this  ordeal,  and  was  subjected  to  a  thorough  re- 
view, the  result  of  which  is  a  deeper  and  pro- 
founder  apprehension  of  the  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity, as  reproduced  in  what  is  known  as  Pro- 
testant theology,  which  is  accepted  by  the  most 
enlightened  portion  of  Christendom. 

Protestant  Theology,  however,  was  not  ex- 
empt from  the  same  liability  of  failing  to  appre- 
hend fully  the  system  of  doctrines,  which  it 
exhumed  out  of  the  accumulated  errors  of  past 
ages,  or  at  least  to  retain  it  pure  and  simple; 
and  was  subjected,  especially  in  its  modern  ac- 
ceptation, to  the  most  unmerciful  criticism  ot 
German  rationalism  and  infidelity,  which  in- 
duced a  theological  struggle,  such  as  the  world 
had  never  witnessed  before.  It  may  well  be 
called  the  life-struggle  of  theology  for  the  entire 
Church,  fought  on  the  old  battle-field  of  the 
Sixteenth  Century,  which  resulted  for  the  second 
time  in  a  triumphant  vindication  of  the  truth; 
but  apprehended  in  a  deeper  and  profoundcr 
sense  than  ever  before. 


INTRODUCTION.  13 

German  Evangelical  Theology,  or  theolo- 
gy as  thus  reproduced,  and  in  part  still  in  the 
act  of  being  reproduced  by  the  ablest  and  pro- 
foundest  defenders  of  our  holy  Christianity  the 
Church  has  ever  produced,  is  Protestant  still, 
over  against  the  errors  of  Rome;  but  Catholic, 
at  the  same  time,  as  embracing  the  whole  truth 
as  underlying  the  faith  of  the  Church  in  all 
ages;  and  Evangelical,  as  doing  full  justice  to 
the  positive  results  of  the  Reformation.  In 
Germany  it  is  best  known  by  what  is  called 
Evangelical  Theology,  being  the  product  of  the 
united  Evangelical  Church  of  that  country.  Re- 
formed and  Lutheran.  In  this  country  it  is  best 
known  as  Mercersburg  Theology;  as  the 
Theological  Professors  of  the  Seminary  located 
there,  were  the  first  who  reproduced  it  in  this 
country  to  meet  the  wants  especially  of  our 
own  Modern  Puritanic  and  prevailing  English 
and  American  Theology.  The  philosophy 
which  underlies  it,  is  taught  in  Franklin  and 
Marshall  College,  transferred  from  Mercersburg 
to  Lancaster. 


14  introduction. 

Mercersburg  and  Modern  Theology  com- 
pared, form  an  intensely  interesting  subject. 
The  difference  between  them,  on  almost  every 
point  of  doctrine,  is  so  broad  and  marked,  as  to 
be  really  startling,  and  withal  of  such  vast  im- 
portance as  to  challenge  the  serious  attention  of 
all,  who  are  interested  in  the  common  cause  of 
whic'h  they  treat.  Being  two  broadly  distinct 
systems  throughout,  proceeding  from  two  en- 
tirely different  modes  of  thinking,  it  is  moreover 
impossible  to  accept  both  at  the  same  time.  We 
must  either  accept  the  one  or  the  other  exclu- 
sively, with  all  the  logical  consequences  it  in- 
volves. We  cannot  apply  to  Mercersburg  theo- 
logy the  eclectic  mode  of  accepting  a  portion  of 
it  and  rejecting  others.  The  sooner  this  is  un- 
derstood by  the  Reformed  Church,  in  whose 
bosom  it  has  found  its  home,  the  better  it  will 
be.  To  be  consistent  we  must  either  give  it  up 
altogether,  as  a  false  and  dangerous  innovation 
throughout,  or  heartily  embrace  it  as  a  whole, 
as  the  true  sense  and  meaning  of  our  own  theo- 
logical position  as   a  Church,  to  the  exclusion 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

entirely  of  the  modern  system,  of  which  it  is  the 
direct  opposite,  so  far  as  their  distinctive  fea- 
tures are  concerned.  We  want  more  light  on 
this  subject,  and  more  generally  diffused  among 
ministers  and  people.  The  subject  has  been 
brought  in  review  before  this;  but  at  a  time 
when  discussion  had  excited  the  feelings  and 
affected,  perhaps,  to  a  degree,  the  impartial  and 
deliberate  judgment  of  those  who  were  interested 
in  the  subject.  Let  us  see  how  Mercersburg 
and  Modern  theology  compare,  when  viewed  in 
the  absence  of  all  excitement  in  reference  to  it. 
Let  us  be  fair  and  candid,  and  try  to  get  at  the 
truth  for  its  own  sake,  and  for  the  cause  in 
which  we  are  all  equally  interested.  The  brief 
comparison  here  attempted^  makes  of  course  no 
pretension  to  completeness,  nor  to  any  syste- 
matic arrangement,  which  is  not  necessary  for 
our  purpose,  which  is  simply  to  present  briefly 
the  gist  of  their  various  points  of  difference. 


MERCERSBURG  AND  MODERN 
THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  I. 


§  1. — ANTHROPOLOGY. 

.ERCERSBURG  theology  has  rejected 

as  untenable  the  empiricism  of  Locke, 

which    still    underlies    especially    our 

English   and   American  theologj,  and 

which  denies   the   existence  of  innate 

ideas,  and  asserts  that  all  our  ideas  come  from 

sensation    and   reflection;    that   is,   have   their 

ground  and   source  outside  of  us.     The  mind, 

according  to  this  theory,  is  constitutionally  like 

a  blank   sheet  of  paper,  in  which  there  is  no 

self-evolving    power    to    originate    an    idea    or 

thought,  except  what  is  impressed  upon  it  from 

without,  through  the  medium  of  our  senses,  and 
2  17 


IB  MERCERSBURG   AND 

reproduced  into  complex  forms  bj  the  power  of 
reflection.  There  is,  accordingly,  no  innate 
basis,  grounded  in  our  nature,  on  which  the 
truth  of  the  existence  of  things,  spiritual  and 
supernatural,  can  be  based,  but  has  to  be  es- 
tablished by  outside  evidences  alone.  Instead 
of  this  bald  and  superficial  conception  of  the 
constitution  of  man's  nature,  the  logical  conse- 
quences of  which  lead  to  infidelity,  the  anthro- 
pological premises  from  which  Mercersburg 
theology  proceeds,  is  the  God-consciousness  in 
man,  which  is  inherent  in  our  nature,  being 
self-evident,  and  requiring  no  proof.  The  co7i- 
seiousness  of  sin  is  equally  innate  and  self-evi- 
dent. The  consciousness  of  the  need  of  redemp- 
tion, as  growing  out  of  these,  is  equally  so. 
These  self-evident  truths,  grounded  in  the  proper 
self-consciousness  of  man  himself,  need  not  first 
be  established  by  evidences  or  arguments  de- 
rived from  other  premises,  and  these  again  from 
others,  until  you  are  driven  back  into  intermi- 
nable perplexity  and  discomfiture  by  the  sharp 
dialectician,  who  justly  demands  self-evident  or 


MODERN    THEOLOGY.  19 

undeniable  premises,  from  which  jou  attempt  to 
reason.  This  is  one  difference  between  the  pre- 
vailing modern  and  Mercersburg  theology.* 
We  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  more  particu- 
larly of  the  nature  of  evidence  in  its  proper 
connection. 


§  2. — THE    CENTRAL    IDEA. 

Another  difference  is  in  their  central  idea. 
Modern  theology  makes  the  atonement  or  death 
of  Christ,  Mercersburg  the  person  of  Christ  or 
the  incarnation,  its  central  idea.  The  impor- 
tance of  this  difference  can  be  seen  in  the  fact, 
for  instance,  that  the  atonement  itself,  or  justi- 
fication by  faith,  cannot  be  maintained  success- 
fully by  adopting  the  former.  According  to  it, 
the  atonement  is  made  to  rest  primarily  on  what 
Christ  has  done,  not  on  what  he  is.  It  appre- 
hends Christ  as  a  mere  individual,  God  and  man 


*  See  note  1,  at  the  end  of  the  volume,  on  Dr.  B.'s  criti- 
cism. 


20  MERCERSBURG   AND 

in  one  person,  it  is  true,  but  yet  as  a  mere  indi- 
vidual. Mercersburg  theology  apprehends  Christ 
as  the  embodiment  of  the  universal  life  of  hu- 
manity, the  second  Adam  or  federal  head  of  the 
race;*  and  his  obedience  and  death  receive  their 
atoning  merits  from  this  fact.  When  he  was 
nailed  to  the  cross,  moFC  than  a  mere  indivi- 
dual— humanity  itself — was  nailed  to  the  cross; 
consequently  whatever  merits  attach  to  his  suf- 
fering and  death  belonf^;  to  the  race  as  a  Avhole — 
not  to  one  individual  simply — nor  to  a  limited 
number  of  individuals — nor  to  all  individuals 
numerically  considered — but  to  humanity  as  a 
whole  (which  is  something  more,  and  deeper, 
and  broader  and  more  universal,  than  any  num- 
ber of  mere  individuals), — subject  to  appropria- 
tion by  all  who  claim  them  for  their  individual 
wants.  If  Christ  had  been  but  a  mere  indivi- 
dual, one  among  many,  no  such  universal  atone- 
ment, nor  even  a  limited  atonement,  could  have 
been  possible.  The  merits  of  his  death  could 
apply  no  farther  than  to  himself,  and  the  idea  of 


^  See  note  2. 


MODERN    THEOLOGY.  21 

tlie  atonement,  as  available  for  others,  falls  to 
the  ground.  The  idea  of  one  individual  dying 
for  the  crimes  of  another  individual,  does  not 
satisfy  the  demands  of  justice.  The  doctrine  of 
the  atonement  must  be  apprehended  in  a  pro- 
founder  sense  than  this  comes  to,  and  this  de- 
pends on  a  proper  conception  of  the  person  of 
Christ. 


§  3. — THE    PERSON   OF    CHRIST. 

The  person  of  Christ,"  from  which  the  atone- 
ment receives  all  its  significance,  is  thus  proper- 
ly made  the  central  idea  in  Theology;  for  not 
only  the  atonement,  but  all  other  doctrines  be- 
sides, must  be  apprehended  from  this  central 
point  of  vie^Y.  As  such  the  doctrine  of  the  per- 
son of  Christ  itself,  as  already  intimated,  has 
received  special  attention,  and  is  apprehended 
more  profoundly  than  heretofore.  The  points 
of  difference  between  modern  and  Mercersburg 
theology,  in  their  Christological  conceptions,  arc 


\/^ 


22  MERCERSI3URG    AJiD 

numerous  and  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the 
whole  system  of  Christian  doctrine. 


§  4. THE    INCARNATION. 

The  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  according 
to  modern  theology,  implies  no  more  than  that 
he  assumed  human  nature  and  became  an  In- 
dividual Man.  Accordino;  to  Mercersburo^  the- 
ology,  he  assumed  humanity  and  became  the 
Universal  Man,  standing  related  to  the  race  as 
redeemed  ni  him,  as  the  first  Adam  stood  re- 
lated to  the  race  as  fallen  in  him.  The  human- 
ity of  the  one  is  as  broad,  as  universal  and  com- 
prehensive as  the  humanity  of  the  other.  It  is 
in  this  sense  in  which  the  Son  of  God,  when  he 
assumed  human  nature,  became  Man,  by  virtue 
of  its  sinless  perfection  in  him,  and  thereby  as- 
sumed the  whole  of  its  responsibilities  to  divine 
justice. 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  23 

§  5. — REDEMPTION. 

According  to  modern  theology,  the  Son  of 
God  assumed  our  nature  in  order  that  through 
it,  as  a  means  to  an  end  beyond  himself,  he 
might  procure  redemption  for  humanity  as  fallen 
in  Adam.  According  to  Mercersburg,  the  very 
assumption  of  that  nature,  in  its  sinless  perfec- 
tion, was  itself  the  redemption  of  humanity. 
In  him  humanity  stands  redeemed  already,  as 
the  source  and  fountain  of  the  new  race  which 
proceeds  from  him.  In  him  is  our  redemption, 
and  by  becoming  one  with  him,  it  is  all  our  own. 


§    6. — HYPOSTATICAL    UNION. 

The  hypostatical  union,  or  the  union  of  the 
divine  and  hum,an  nature  in  the  person  of  Christ, 
is  real,  not  only  in  one  person,  but  in  one  life, 
the  divine-human  life  of  the  God-man.  The 
terms  here  used  and  italicised,  and  the  ideas 
they  convey,  are  nowhere  embodied  in  modern 
theology.     It  has  no  definite  idea  what  life  it  is 


24  MBRCERSBURG    AND 

that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  which  is  communi- 
cated to  believers. 


§  7. — THE   LIFE    OF   CHRIST. 

The  life  of  Christ,  communicated  to  believers, 
carries  with  it,  accordingly,  his  human  as  well 
as  his  divine  nature.  Modern  theology  repu- 
diates as  obsolete  the  whole  idea,  that  believers 
partake  of  Christ's  humanity.*  But  in  doing  so, 
it  must  utterly  and  hopelessly  fail  to  show,  not 
only  how  we  can  become  real  partakers  of  his 
divine  nature,  but  how  we  can  become  real  par- 
takers in  the  merits  of  his  suffering  and  death, 
which  he  endured  in  his  human  nature.  If  it 
be  true,  as  it  tells  us,  that  we  have  no  part  in 
his  human  nature,  it  is  bound  to  show  how  it 
happens  that  we  have  part  in  its  merits,  or  deny 
this  as  well. 


*  See  note  3. 


MODERN  THEOLOGY.  25 

§  8. — IMPUTATION. 

Modern  theology  tries  to  help  itself  at  this 
point  by  means  of  the  doctrine  of  imputation. 
The  merits  of  Christ  are  imputed  to  believers. 
But  on  this  same  doctrine  of  imputation,  the 
*same  wide  difference  holds  between  the  two  sys- 
tems. According  to  the  modern  conception, 
which  views  Christ  simply  as  an  individual,  tlie 
imputation  of  Christ's  merits  to  believers  is  a 
mere  abstraction,  without  a  corresponding  par- 
ticipation of  them  in  fact.  According  to  Mer- 
cersburg,  the  sin  of  our  first  parents  is  imputed 
to  their  posterity,  because  they  are  involved  in 
it; — and  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed 
to  believers  for  the  same  reason,  i.  e.,  because 
they  have  part  in  it  by  virtue  of  their  union 
with  him. 


2G  MERCERSBURQ    AND 


CHAPTER  II. 


§  9. — THE   ATONExMENT. 

^  0  a  sound  Cliristology,  there  are  no  diffi- 
l^k  culties  to  the  Scriptural  idea  of  the 
atonement,  or  vicarious  sacrifice.  The 
difii culties  that  present  themselves  hold 
only  against  the  abstract  modern  concep- 
tion of  this  doctrine.  For  instance,  when 
the  apostle  says,  (2  Cor.  v.  21,)  "Christ  was 
made  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin,  that  we 
might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in 
him,"  the  question  arises,  in  the  first  place,  how 
it  is  reconcilable  with  divine  justice,  that  Christ, 
who  was  without  sin,  should  be  accounted  and 
*  treated  as  a  sinner?  and  in  the  second  place, 
how  the  reverse  of  this,  in  our  case,  is  recon- 
cilable with  the  same  divine  justice,  namely,  that 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  27 

we,  who  arc  sinners,  sliould  be  accounted  and 
treated  as  tliougli  we  had  no  sin  ?  Both  ques- 
tions demand  a  solution,  in  order  to  vindicate  the 
doctrine  of  the  atonement.  Let  us  look  at  the 
first,  and  then  at  the  second  of  these  questions. 
It  is  correct,  in  a  general  way,  to  say,  that 
both  take  place  by  imputation ;  provided,  we  do 
not  apprehend  imputation  as  a  mere  abstraction, 
as  is  done  by  modern  theology.  It  is  true,  the 
guilt  of  our  sin  was  imputed  to  Christ,  as  though 
]ie,  who  knew  no  sin,  were  indeed  a  sinner.  But 
God  ever  judges  according  to  truth  and  justice. 
How,  then,  could  the  truth  and  justice  of  God 
hold  Christ,  who  was  sinlessly  holy,  responsible 
for  the  sins  of  the  human  race?  Not  by  setting 
them  simply  over  to  his  account,  in  the  abstract 
sense  in  which  imputation  is  generally  under- 
stood. Here,  as  elsewhere,  imputation  must  be 
apprehended  as  something  more  than  an  abstrac- 
tion. The  imputation  of  our  guilt  to  Christ,  as 
in  the  case  of  Adam's  guilt  to  his  posterity,  and 
the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  be- 
lievers, is  not  without  a  participation  of  what  is 


28  MERCERSBURG   AND 

thus  imputed.  There  must  be,  and  there  is,  a 
perfect  justice  in  accounting  Christ  responsible 
for  our  sin,  though  he  himself  was  without  sin. 
But  the  truth  and  justice  in  the  case  rest  upon 
the  fact,  that  he  assumed  our  guilt  by  assuming 
our  nature.  The  assumption  of  the  same  human 
nature  that  had  sinned,  on  the  part  of  a  sinless 
Christ,  did  not  absolve  that  nature  from  the 
guilt  and  responsibility  of  sin.  His  assumption 
of  that  nature  gave  justice  the  right  to  hold 
liim  answerable  for  the  guilt  of  that  nature;  for 
in  assuming  it,  he  necessarily  assumed  all  its 
debts  and  liabilities,  and,  therefore,  placed  him- 
self under  the  necessity  of  rendering  satisfaction 
for  sin.  A  man,  as  far  as  he  himself  is  con- 
cerned, may  be  free  of  debts;  but  by  becoming 
the  proprietor  of  an  estate  that  is  covered  with 
judgments,  for  the  liabilities  of  its  former  owner, 
he  becomes  responsible  for  these  debts  the  same  as 
if  he  had  incurred  them  himself.  By  assuming 
the  proprietorship  of  the  estate,  he  assumes  its 
indebtedness,  and  thereby,  and  not  necessarily 
by  any  debts  contracted  by  himself,  he  becomes 


MODERN  THEOLOGY.  29 

a  debtor  to  the  law,  and  is  justly  and  legally 
bound  to  render  satisfaction  to  its  claims.  Thus, 
by  assuming  our  nature  that  had  sinned  and  is 
under  sentence  of  condemnation,  Christ  becomes 
a  debtor  to  the  law,  and  is,  therefore,  bound  to 
satisfy  the  demands  of  the  law,  the  same  as  if 
he  himself  had  incurred  the  debt.  The  justice 
that  accounts  him  responsible  does  not  rest  on 
any  sin  comm.itted  by  him,  or  an  abstract  as- 
sumption of  our  sins,  but  on  the  assumption  of 
our  nature  that  had  sinned.  Imputation  is, 
therefore,  not  an  abstraction,  without  reason, 
truth  and  justice,  but  in  full  accordance  with 
either  and  all  of  them.  The  mere  fact  that  the 
human  nature  in  the  person  of  Christ  is  without 
sin,  and  perfectly  holy,  does  not  exempt  it  from 
the  guilt  and  responsibility  of  sin,  as  little  as 
our  sanctification  could  justify  us  before  God. 
As  Protestants,  we  all  know  that  our  justifica- 
tion is  not  effected  by  our  sanctification.  As 
there  can  be  no  justification  or  pardon  for  the 
sinner,  simply  by  changing  or  sanctifying  him 
by  the  power  and  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 


80  MERCEKSBUKG   AND 

SO  neither  could  the  human  nature,  that  had 
sinned,  be  reconciled  with  God,  simply  by  the  fact 
of  Christ's  assuming  it  by  the  operation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  in  a  state  of  sinless  perfection, 
without  atoning  for  its  guilt.  On  the  contrary, 
by  the  very  assumption  of  that  nature,  he  be- 
came bound  to  render  satisfaction  for  its  guilt, 
and  on  the  rendering  of  that  satisfaction  rests 
its  reconciliation  with  God.  God  was  in  Christ, 
reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,  not  simply 
by  assuming  human  nature,  but  by  suffering  the 
penalty  of  the  law  in  his  own  person.  The  as- 
sumption of  our  nature  was  a  free  and  voluntary 
act  on  the  part  of  the  Son  of  God,  proceeding 
from  infinite  love  for  a  fallen  race.  The  law 
neither  forbade  nor  demanded  his  humiliation. 
But  when  once  freely  and  voluntarily  assumed, 
then  the  law  demanded,  and  had  a  right  to  demand, 
full  satisfaction  for  sin.  This  he  rendered  by 
his  active  and  2:)assive  obedience,  and  forms  the 
ground  of  the  sinner's  justification  before  God. 
But  we  now  come  to  the  next  question,  which 
is  precisely  the    reverse    of  the    one  just  con- 


MODERN  THEOLOGY.  31 

sidered.  The  first  is,  how  a  perfectly  righteous 
man  can  be  justly  and  truthfully  accounted  and 
treated  as  a  sini:er ;  and  the  next  is,  how  guilty  sin- 
ners can  justly  and  truthfully  be  accounted  and 
treated  as  if  they  were  perfectly  righteous?  A 
successful  vindication  of  the  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment requires  also  a  solution  of  this  question, 
bound  up  and  involved  as  it  is  in  the  former ;  for 
"Christ  was  made  sin  for  us,  that  we  might  he 
made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him."  The 
mere  fact  that  Christ  was  made  sin,  who  knew 
no  sin ;  or,  that  he  assumed  the  same  human  na- 
ture that  had  sinned,  and  thus  placed  himself  un- 
der obligation  to  render  satisfaction  for  sin,  does 
not  yet  explain  how  this  is  done  "/or  us ;''  how 
*'^^e,"  thereby,  become  the  righteousness  of  God.'' 
We  can  understand  well  enough,  from  what  has 
been  said,  that  the  satisfaction  which  he  rendered 
to  the  law  holds  good  in  reference  to  human 
nature  as  comprehended  in  his  own  person, 
whether  as  individual,  or  the  new  federal  head 
of  the  race.  But  this  does  not,  in  itself,  en- 
lighten us  on  the  question,  how  we,  individually. 


82  MERCERSBURG   AND 

are  affected  bj  it.  The  atonement,  to  be  of  any 
benefit  to  us,  must  be  vicarious,  rendered  for  us, 
a.nd  in  our  stead.  The  doctrine  is,  that  Christ 
died  for  us,  the  just  for  the  unjust.  How,  then, 
does  it  happen  that  we  have  part  in  this  objec- 
tive atonement?  How  can  the  truth  and  justice 
of  God  look  upon  us  sinners  as  being  righteous, 
on  account  of  the  satisfaction  which  Christ  has 
rendered  to  divine  justice? 

The  learned  Bishop  Hall  replies  very  perti- 
nently to  this  question  by  saying:  "He  is  made 
our  righteousness,  as  he  was  made  our  sin — im- 
putation do  eth  hoth.*'  Very  good;  but  imputa- 
tion here,  as  in  the  former  case,  is  clearly  not 
to  be  apprehended  as  a  mere  abstraction,  but 
must  be  in  accordance  with  truth  and  justice. 
Imputation,  as  a  mere  abstraction,  would  fail  to 
meet  the  case  here  as  much  as  it  failed  in  the 
other.  Christ,  wdio  had  no  sin  of  his  own,  was 
nevertheless  accounted  and  condemned  as  though 
he  were  a  sinner,  and  that  in  full  accordance  with 
truth  and  justice,  because  he  partook  of  the 

SAxAIE   HUMAN   NATURE   THAT    HAD  SINNED.       On 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  33 

this  the  imputation  rested.  It  was  this  that  gave 
it  truth  and  justice.  So  in  the  reverse  case, 
we,  who  have  no  righteousness  of  our  own,  are 
*'made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,"  be- 
cause we  partake,  by  virtue  of  our  union  with 

him,  OF  THE  SAME  HUMAN  NATURE  THAT  KNEW 
NO    SIN,  AND    RENDERED    SATISFACTION   FOR  SIN. 

On  this  the  imputation  in  the  case  rests,  and  it 
is  this,  and  this  only,  that  gives  it  truth  and 
justice.  "  He  was  made  sin  for  us,  who  knew 
no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness 
of  God  IN  HIM."* 


§  10. — JUSTIFICATION. 

Justification  by  faith  in  the  merits  of  Christ, 
is,  according   to   modern   theology,  simply  an 


*  This  article  was  penned  and  inserted  here,  as  its  most 
appropriate  place,  after  the  rest  of  the  series  had  already 
been  written  and  published.  It  was  occasioned  by  the 
reading  of  a  notice  of  a  recent  work  on  the  same  subject. 
It  is  intended,  in  its  present  connection,  to  show  more 
fully  how  utterly  powerless  modern  theology  is  to  vindicate 
this  vital  doctrine,  with  its  abstract  notion  of  imputation, 
and  bold  rejection  of  our  partaking  of  the  humanity  of 
Christ. 
3 


34  MERCERSBURG   AND 

outward  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  to 
believers.  According  to  Catholic  theology,  it  is 
the  making  us  righteous  by  the  regenerating 
and  sanctifying  influence  of  the  Spirit,  which 
Protestant  theology  has  justly  rejected.  Ac- 
cording to  Oxford  theology,  or  Puseyism  (which 
seeks  to  mediate  between  the  Catholic  and  Pro- 
testant idea),  justification  is  the  making  us 
righteous  by  the  communication  of  the  divine 
life  of  Christ,  which,  being  divine  and  holy, 
makes  us  righteous.  According  to  Mercersburg 
theology,  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  imputation 
is  substantially  correct,  that  we  are  accounted 
righteous  for  the  sake  of  the  merits  and  right- 
eousness of  Christ  (his  active  and  passive  obedi- 
ence whilst  on  earth);  but  apprehends  the  doc- 
trine more  profoundly,  by  adding,  that  the 
divine  act  of  imputation  in  the  case  is  condi- 
tioned by  our  actual  participation  in  these 
merits,  by  virtue  of  our  union  with  Christ.  It 
is  not  simply  a  declaratory,  but  a  creative  act 
at  the  same  time,  which  brings  us  into  possession 
of  Christ's  merits,  which  arc  imputed  to  us  for 


MODERN    THEOLOGY.  35 

righteousness.  The  merits  of  Christ  are  there- 
fore not,  as  modern  theology  would  have  it, 
simply  set  over  to  our  account,  hut  are  made 
over  to  us  in  fact,  in  the  mystical  union  of 
Christ  and  the  believer.  The  merits  of  Christ 
are  inseparable  from  his  divine-human  person  or 
life,  and  go  together  in  the  simultaneous  act  of 
justification  and  regeneration,  which  do  not  fol- 
low each  other  in  the  order  of  time.* 


§  11. — REGENERATION. 

Regeneration,  according  to  modern  theology, 
is,  to  use  the  most  plausible  form  of  expression, 
a  change  of  heart,  wrought  by  the  operation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  To  deny  this  is  enough  to 
cause  men  and  women  to  raise  up  their  hands  in 
holy  horror.  According  to  Merccrsburg  theology, 
neither  an  outward  reformation,  nor  an  inward 
change  of  heart  and  mind,  constitutes  regenera- 
tion.    These  are  but  the  results  of  regeneration. 


*  Sec  notes  4  and  5. 


86  MEKCERSBURG   AND 

not  regeneration  itself;  the  product  simply  of 
something  that  lies  back  of  it,  and  deeper  and 
profounder  than  all  this.  Regeneration,  accord- 
ing to  Mercersburg  theology,  is  truly  and  really 
what  the  Saviour  calls  it,  the  new  birth !  This 
is  a  different  idea  altogether.  It  is  not  like 
changing  a  filthy  garment  into  a  clean  one, 
which  is  the  type  of  regeneration  according  to 
modern  theology.  There  is,  according  to  this 
view,  much  taken  away  from  our  old  nature ; 
but  nothing  new  is  added  that  was  not  at  hand 
before  the  washing  began.  It  is  still  our  old 
nature — the  old  Adam — washed,  and  cleansed, 
and  dressed  up  like  a  veritable-looking  Christian, 
it  is  true;  but  he  is,  for  all  that,  not  a  new 
creature.  How  different  from  all  this  is  the 
prominent  idea  in  the  conception  of  a  JSfeiu 
Birth,  or  that  of  being  made  a  new  creature  in 
Christ  Jesus!  What  is  implied  in  a  natural 
birth?  A  life-communication;  and  the  new 
birth  is  nothing  short  of  this.  It  is,  according 
to  Mercersburg  theology,  the  communication  of 
Christ's  life  to  believers,  by  the  operation  of 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  37 

the  Holy  Spirit.  Christ  is  to  be  formed  within 
us,  the  hope  of  glory,  and  this  life-communica- 
tion is  the  beginning  of  the  process ;  the  end, 
our  entire  sanctification  by  the  assimilating  and 
transforming  power  of  the  life  of  Christ,  which, 
by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  becomes 
the  life  of  our  life,  and  more  and  more  the  life 
of  our  whole  being,  until  our  remaining  corrup- 
tion is  finally  and  forever  surmounted.  The 
deepest  ground  of  Christ's  life,  in  the  act  of 
regeneration,  enters  into  the  deepest  ground  of 
our  life,  where  they  become  one,  the  latter  being 
raised  up  into  the  order  and  quality  of  the 
former;  a  parallel  of  which,  to  some  extent, 
may  be  found  in  the  grafted  vine,  which  unites 
in  one  the  life  of  the  old  vine  and  that  of  the 
new,  whilst  the  life  of  the  old  vine  is  raised  up 
into  the  nature  and  quality  of  the  new. 


§  12. — THE    NEW    CREATION. 

Regeneration  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than 
the  new  birth,  and  not  itself,  strictly  speaking, 


38  MERCERSBURG   AND 

the  new  creation;  but  it  has  its  ground  in  the 
new  creation.  Man,  at  the  head  of  the  first 
creation,  with  all  its  different  orders  of  life,  with 
which  he  stood  intimately  and  harmoniously 
connected,  stood  in  the  same  intimate  and  har- 
monious relation  with  God,  his  creator,  and  the 
paradise  on  earth  with  the  paradise  above.  God 
and  man  were  united,  heaven  and  earth  were  in 
harmony.  When  man  fell  from  this  high  estate, 
he  involved  all  nature  in  the  ruin  of  his  fall. 
God  and  man  were  separated.  Paradise  was 
lost,  heaven  and  earth  were  parted.  How  can 
this  lost  unity  between  God  and  man,  between 
the  human  and  divine,  the  natural  and  the  su- 
pernatural be  again  restored?  Can  what  is 
thus  unhappily  broken  and  separated  be  again 
joined  together,  so  as  fully  to  answer  its  original 
idea  of  unity  ?  Modern  theology  says,  yes,  cer- 
tainly. Mercersburg  theology  says,  no,  never. 
Old  things  must  pass  away,  and  all  things  must 
become  new.  A  new  creation  is  here  wanted  to 
restore  the  unbroken  unity  which  was  lost.  Any 
thing  short  of  this  would  be  but  the  old  crea- 


MODERN  THEOLOGY.  39 

tion  patched  up,  a  thing  mended,  but  not  made 
new,  whether  its  joining  together  could  be 
effected  by  screwing  up  and  elevating  the  one 
part,  or  depressing  the  other,  or  by  both.  A 
thing  once  broken,  however  it  may  be  joined  to- 
gether, can  never  be  any  thing  more  than  an 
old  mended  thing.  The  divine  nature  lost  in 
the  fall  of  the  race,  cannot  be  restored,  except 
by  a  new  creation.  It  is  only  thus  that  God 
and  man,  heaven  and  earth,  can  again  become 
united,  and  paradise  restored  on  earth.  The 
necessity  of  this,  and  the  nature  of  this  new 
creation,  and  its  relation  to  the  new  birth,  will 
become  clearer  to  the  mind  by  entering  a  little 
more  into  detail.  Man,  and  with  him  all  the 
lower  kingdoms  and  orders  of  life  in  the  first 
creation,  fell  from  the  life  of  God.  The  lowest 
order  of  life  (if  life  it  can  be  called*),  is  present 
in  the  mineral  kingdom,  which  approximates  to 


*  Dr.  Ilahneinan's  system  of  medicine  rests  on  the  theory, 
that  there  is  in  every  particle  of  matter,  a  latent  principle 
analogous  to  life,  the  manifestations  of  which  are  the  eflfects 
it  produces  when  brought  into  contact  with  organic  life. 


40  MERCERSBURG   AND 

the  vegetable  kingdom,  in  which  a  higher  order 
of  life  is  manifestly  present.  This  again  ap- 
proximates the  animal  kingdom,  in  which  life 
and  its  manifestations  are  of  a  higher  order  still. 
This  looks  up  and  approximates  a  still  higher 
order  of  life  than  itself,  which  is  human  life. 
All  these  different  kingdoms  and  orders  of  life, 
stand  intimately  related  to  each  other,  and 
even  flow  into  each  other,  so  that  it  is  difficult 
sometimes  to  draw  the  line  of  distinction;  and 
yet  each  one,  by  the  law  of  its  nature,  is  limited 
to  its  own  order  of  existence,  and  is  not  able  to 
overleap  its  own  boundary,  and  become  some- 
thing higher  than  itself.  Here  then  we  have 
these  various  kingdoms  and  orders  of  life :  first 
the  mineral,  secondly  the  vegetable,  then  the 
animal,  then  the  human.  Beyond  this,  there  is 
still  a  higher  order  of  life,  the  divine  life — but 
at  what  a  distance  beyond  the  human !  Here  is 
the  open  gap,  caused  by  the  fall.  Originally 
this  gap  did  not  exist.  Before  the  fall,  man 
stood  in  as  intimate  relation  to  the  divine  life, 
as  he  stands  to  the  orders  of  life  beneath  him. 


MODERN    THEOLOGY.  41 

But  sin  caused  the  separation.  There  is  the 
breach.  Man  and  this  present  world  stand  on 
one  side,  God  and  paradise  on  the  other. 
Heaven  and  earth  cannot  be  so  moved  as  to 
bring  them  together.  The  case  requires  the  ac- 
tual creation  of  a  new  kingdom,  and  a  new  or- 
der of  life  to  mediate  between  them.  And  what 
order  of  life  is  here  wanted  to  fill  up  the  chasm 
and  re-unite  them?  Not  a  purely  human,  nor 
a  purely  divine  order  of  life;  for  these  are 
already  at  hand.  The  case  requires  a  divine- 
human  order  of  life,  that  will  fit  in,  and  fill  up 
the  gap.  Such  a  divine-human  life  is  provided 
for  in  the  person  and  kingdom  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  new  creation,  in  which  God  and  man, 
heaven  and  earth  are  again  united.  By  the 
new  birth  we  are  born  into  this  new  kingdom, 
and  become  new  creatures  in  Christ  Jesus.  By 
our  natural  birth  we  are  born  fallen  and  sinful 
beings,  destitute  of  the  life  of  God.  The  law  of 
sin,  which  is  the  controlling  law  of  this  life,  will 
never  allow  it  to  rise  above  itself.  A  mineral 
can  never  be  cultivated  into  a  vegetable,  nor  a 


42  MERCERSBURG  AND 

vegetable  into  an  animal,  nor  an  animal  trained 
into  a  human  being,  nor  a  sinner  into  a  Chris- 
tian. An  ape  may  look  very  much  like  a  hu- 
man being,  and  be  taught  to  play  many  human 
tricks,  but  he  remains  an  ape  for  all  that.  And 
unless  the  sinner  be  born  again,  and  become  a 
new  creature  in  Christ  Jesus,  he  can  never  sur- 
mount the  law  of  sin,  which  binds  him  to  his 
fallen  condition,  the  life  and  order  of  mere 
nature. 


§  13. — THE   BODY   OF   CHRIST. 

But  the  real  difficulty  in  the  way  of  modern 
theology  is,  after  all,  an  old  anthropological 
one,  raised  by  ancient  and  revived  by  modern 
critics,  which  has  brought  into  almost  universal 
discredit  the  doctrine  of  our  partaking  of  the 
humanity  of  Christ.  These  critics,  both  ancient 
and  modern,  have  failed,  however,  to  show,  on 
truly  scientific  principles,  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church,  that  believers  partake  of  the  body 
of  Christ,  is  untenable;  and  it  was  entirely  pre- 
mature and  fatal  to  all  sound  theological  views, 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  43 

to  drop  this  doctrine  in  our  modern  systems  of 
theology.  The  objections  of  these  false  critics 
rest  on  the  exploded  assumption,  that  the  human 
body  is  essentially  and  entirely  material^  and 
consequently  governed  by  the  laws  of  matter  ex- 
clusively. We  admit  that  the  science  of  an- 
thropology was  not  so  far  advanced  at  the  time, 
that  the  ancient  Church,  or  the  Reformers  in 
their  day,  were  able  to  reply  successfully  to 
this  objection  ;*and  yet  they  held  firmly  to  the 
doctrine  thus  assailed,  because  they  found  it 
contained  in  God's  word  and  essential  to  the 
whole  system  of  Christian  doctrine.  Luther 
endeavored  to  meet  this  objection,  by  taking  the 
position,  that,  by  virtue  of  the  union  of  both  na- 
tures in  the  person  of  Christ,  his  body,  in  a 
glorified  state,  could  be  present  wherever  his 
divinity  was.  However  true  this  may  be,  when 
properly  apprehended,  it  is  neither  correct  nor 
satisfactory  when  predicated  of  the  body  of 
Christ  as  something  in  itself  corporeal  and  ex- 
clusively material.  Calvin  felt  this,  and  en- 
deavored to  solve  the  difficulty  in  another  way. 


44  MERCEESBURG   AXD 

According  to  his  view,  our  faith  elevates  us 
above  the  limits  and  laws  of  space,  and  brings 
us  thus  into  living  union  with  his  body,  though 
he  be  in  heaven  and  we  on  earth.  However 
true  this  also  is,  when  properly  apprehended,  it 
was  equally  unsatisfactory  when  predicated  of 
things  corporeal.  It  is  true  of  things  spiritual, 
but  not  of  things  material.  But  whether  these 
different  and  well-meant  attempts  succeeded  in 
satisfying  the  demands  of  reason  or  not,  both 
Luther  and  Calvin  and  their  respective  follow- 
ers, held  firmly  to  the  doctrine,  that  we  partake 
of  the  body  of  Christ  truly  and  really.  Melanc- 
thon  and  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  perhaps  took 
the  wisest  course.  They,  too,  taught  the  posi- 
tive doctrine  that  we  partake  truly  and  really  of 
the  body  of  Christ  as  the  teachings  of  God's 
word,  which  is  higher  than  our  poor,  limited, 
and  erring  human  reason;  and  left  reason  to 
get  rid  of  the  difficulty  the  best  way  it  could,  or 
to  submit  itself,  as  it  is  in  duty  bound,  to  the 
word  of  God.  While  thus  both  the  Reformed 
and  Lutheran  Churches  were  united  in  holding  to 


MODERN  THEOLOaY.  45 

the  doctrine  in  question,  whilst  they  differed 
merely  in  their  respective  modes  of  explaining 
it,  modern  theology  succumbed  and  gave  up  the 
contest,  by  giving  up  the  doctrine  itself.  In- 
stead of  progressing  and  apprehending  the  doc- 
trine more  profoundly,  theology  retrograded  and 
became  itself  rationalistic  in  order  to  square  it- 
self with  such  hyper-criticism.  Mercersburg 
theology  holds  firmly  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  not  only  as  sound  and  safe,  but  as  es- 
sential to  the  maintenance  of  the  whole  system 
of  Christian  doctrine.  It  does  so,  not  by  igno- 
ring the  objections  referred  to,  but  by  pro- 
ving and  exposing  their  fallacy.  According  to 
the  anthropological  conception,  which  underlies 
Mercersburg  theology,  the  accidental  iJarts  of 
the  human  body,  it  is  true,  are  material  and 
subject  to  the  laws  of  matter;  but  the  essential 
'part  is  spiritual,  and  not  subject  to  these  laws. 
We  do  not  partake,  for  example,  of  the  material 
substance  of  Adam's  body,  which  has  been  moul- 
dering in  the  grave  for  six  thousand  years; — 
and  yet,  notwitbstanding  this  freely  admitted 


46  MERCERSBURG    AND 

fact,  all  his  children,  red,  white  and  black,  are 
bone  of  his  bone  and  flesh  of  his  flesh.  More 
than  this,  we  derive  from  him  our  whole  nature, 
body,  soul  and  spirit — but  not,  if  you  please,  the 
bread  and  butter,  the  Indian  corn  and  Irish  po- 
tatoes, that  enter  at  any  time  into  the  outward 
and  material  structure  of  the  body.  The  iden- 
tity of  the  body,  its  true,  essential  ayid  imperisha- 
ble substance,  does  not  consist  in  any  of  these 
material  accidents.  The  parallel  being  thus 
fully  established,  to  which  others  could  be 
added,  there  can  be  no  really  scientific  objection 
raised  against  the  doctrine,  that  believers  par- 
take of  the  body  of  Christ,  the  second  Adam, 
w^ho  are  bone  of  his  bone  and  flesh  of  his  flesh, 
by  virtue  of  their  new  birth,  as  truly  and  really 
as  they  are  of  the  first  Adam,  by  their  natural 
birth. 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  47 


CHAPTER  III. 


§  14. — THE   SACRAMENTS. 

)UFFICIENT  has  already  been  said,  bear- 
ing on  the  sacramental  question,  and  but 
little  is  required  to  be  repeated  here  un- 
der its  specific  head.  It  is  enough  here  to 
say,  that  according  to  Mercersburg  theo- 
logy, the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  is  the  divine- 
ly instituted  means  by  which,  ordinarily,  the  life- 
communication  takes  place,  which,  as  already 
stated,  is  the  beginning  of  that  process,  by  which 
Christ  is  formed  within  us,  the  hope  of  glory; 
and  that  that  life  is  especially  fed  and  nourished 
by  the  Bread  of  life,  communicated  to  us  in  the 
Sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  As 
modern  theology  has  no  conception  of  any  such 
a  life-communication  at  any  time,  and  has  given 
up  the  whole  idea  of  our  partaking  of  the  body 


48  MERCERSBURO   AND 

of  Christ,  under  any  form,  it  cannot  admit  that 
any  thing  of  the  kind  takes  place  in  the  use  of 
the  sacraments.  In  being  thus  unsacramental, 
it  is  but  consistent  with  its  whole  theory  of 
Christianity  and  the  Church. 


§   15. — THE    ORGANIC    LAW   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

The  organic  law  of  Christianity,  as  a  higher 
order  of  life  than  any  which  is  found  in  the 
sphere  of  mere  nature,  holds  in  its  body,  the 
Church,  as  primarily  present,  and  proceeding 
from,  the  person  of  Christ.  The  Individualism 
of  modern  theology  admits  no  such  organic  law 
in  the  case.  The  Church  is,  accordingly,  in  no 
real  sense,  an  organic  body;  but  a  mere  collec- 
tion and  organization  of  individual  Christians, 
who  adopt  such  Church  polity  as  to  them  may 
seem  to  promote  the  general  interests  of  Christi- 
anity under  such  form.  But  there  is  no  binding 
force  on  the  conscience  of  any  one,  to  abide  by 
the  confederation  thus  formed.  Each  one  is  at 
liberty  to  break  loose  from  it  and  join  another, 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  49 

or  start  a  new  one,  better  suited  to  his  fancy, 
without  violating  any  principle  except  that,  per- 
liaps,  of  propriety  and  expediency.  It  is  lawful, 
but  may  not  be  proper  or  expedient,  is  the  ex- 
tent of  the  restriction  under  which  the  radi- 
calism, thus  recognized  as  legitimate,  is  held; 
but  as  each  individual  is  to  be  the  judge  of  the 
expediency  and  propriety  in  his  own  case,  the 
restriction  amounts  to  nothing.  Full  license  is 
thus  given  to  the  sect  spirit,  and  is  justified  in 
the  premises  in  breaking  up  the  Church  into  as 
many  fragments  as  it  pleases.  Hence,  there  is 
no  Church  authority  that  has  a  right  to  inter- 
fere in  maintaining  her  integrity  by  restraining 
the  conscience  of  men.  No  Church  authority  is 
recognized  and  respected  except  such  as  each 
individual  chooses  to  invest  the  Church  wuth; 
and  when  he  takes  that  back,  the  Church  has  no 
longer  jurisdiction  over  him.  The  idea  of  the 
Church  is  thus  reduced  to  a  perfect  level  with 
any  other  voluntary  human  organization.  There 
is  nothing  in  it  that  binds  Christians  together 
organically.     The  Christian  life  which  each  one 

4 


50  MERCERSBURG   AND 

may  be  supposed  to  possess,  he  holds  only  in 
himself,  and  does  not  extend  and  reach  over, 
organically,  to  the  rest  of  the  members  of  the 
same  body. 

According  to  Mercersburg  theology,  how- 
ever, the  very  fact,  that  Christianity  is  a  life, 
and  not  a  mere  idea  or  doctrine,  contradicts  the 
whole  theory  of  the  Church,  as  here  presented. 
The  philosophy  which  underlies  the  proper  idea 
of  the  Church,  lays  down  as  a  universal  propo- 
sition, that  all  life  is  orga7iie,  to  which  the 
Christian  life  can  form  no  exception.  This  be- 
ing true  in  the  premises,  it  follows  as  equally 
true,  that  the  Christian  life  is  attained  only  by 
an  organic  process ;  and  we  have  the  idea  of  the 
Church  as  an  Organism,  starting  in  the  person 
of  Christ  as  its  fountain,  -and  developing  itself 
as  His  mystical  body,  of  which  we  are  the  mem- 
bers. 

Of  the  correctness  of  the  universal  proposi- 
tion referred  to,  any  one  can  convince  himself 
by  a  little  reflection.  Wherever  there  is  life 
and  its  manifestation,  there  is  an  organism,  in 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  51 

which  it  holds  and  is  actually  present  in  the 
world.  This  is  true  of  every  order  of  life,  and 
in  all  the  manifold  forms  in  which  its  presence 
is  known  to  exist.  The  life  of  the  animalcule, 
though  invisible  to  the  naked  eye,  has  its  orga- 
nism, as  well  as  that  of  the  monster  beast  of  the 
held.  The  life  of  the  most  minutely  small 
plants  up  to  the  giant  oaks  of  the  forest,  have 
all  their  peculiar  organisms. 

Human  life  is  organic,  and  the  body  is  its 
organism.  Destroy  this  body  and  its  life  must 
perish.  Outside  of  its  organism  life  can  have 
no  existence  for  the  actual  world  around  us. 

Nor  can  life  reproduce  and  multiply  itself, 
except  by  an  organic  process.  The  farmer,  in 
order  to  multiply  his  grain,  must  allow  it  to  un- 
dergo an  organic  process  of  germination,  of 
growth  and  development,  until  it  has  repro- 
duced itself  a  hundred  fold  in  the  ripened  corn 
in  the  ear. 

All  legitimate  fruit  is  the  result  of  an  organic 
process.  Apples  and  peaches  are  not  made, 
but  grow ;  not   in  the  air^  but  on  trees.     Yan- 


52  MERCERSBURG   AND 

kees  know  how  to  make  wooden  nutmegs,  and 
the  French  understand  how  to  make  all  sorts  of 
artificial  flowers  and  fruit,  that  look  very  pretty ; 
but  no  one  thinks  of  accepting  them  as  genuine. 
The  difierence  between  the  true  and  false  is  ap- 
parent— the  one  grows,  the  other  is  made.  We 
haye  any  number  of  such  ready-made  Christians 
in  the  world,  whose  Christianity  is  professedly 
not  the  result  of  any  organic  process. 

The  family  is  an  organism,  of  which  parents 
are  the  head  and  children  the  members.  Chil- 
dren are  not  born  outside  and  brought  together 
into  the  family,  but  are  born  into  this  relation. 
All  else  are  illegitimate  and  forfeit  all  claim  to 
heirship.  Bastard  Christians  are  equally  ex- 
cluded from  being  heirs  with  the  children  of 
God. 

The  State  is  an  organism,  in  which  the  life  of 
the  nation  is  embodied;  and  its  laws,  its  insti- 
tutions and  citizenship,  are  the  product  of  its 
organic  life.  Outside  of  this  organic  relation 
to  the  State,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  a 
citizen  of  the    State.     All    others    are  aliens. 


MODEEN    THEOLOGY.  53 

whether  in  or  outside  of  the  State;  and  all  who 
are  not  organically  related  to  the  Church  are 
aliens  to  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  the  king- 
dom of  Christ. 

The  Church  is  an  organism,  and  embodies  the 
highest  and  freest  order  of  life.  It  is  the  body 
of  Christ,  and  we  are  its  members.  By  the  pro- 
cess of  organic  development,  the  life  of  Christ 
has  become  the  life  of  the  Church,  which  is  the 
bearer  of  His  life,  and  the  home  of  his  presence 
in  the  world,  to  dispense  life,  and  grace,  and 
truth,  to  all  who  come  unto  Him.  Outside  of 
this  organism  there  can  be  no  Christians,  no' 
Christianity,  because  outside  of  it  there  is  no 
Saviour,  no  life,  no  salvation  for  a  lost  and 
ruined  world.  All  this  is  implied  in  the  simple 
and  undeniable  fact,  that  Christianity  is  a  life; 
for  if  it  be  a  life  at  all,  it  is  organic.  The  only 
escape  from  this  is  to  deny  that  it  is  a  life,  and 
resolve  it  into  mere  idea  or  doctrine  or  precept, 
or  any  thing  else ;  but  this  is  falling  helplessly 
into  the  arms  of  Rationalism  and  Infidelity. 


54  MERCERSBURG   AND 

§  16. — THE    CHURCH   AS   AN   OBJECT   OF   FAITH. 

The  Church  becomes  accordingly  an  object  of 
faith,  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  continuation  of  the 
mystery  of  the  Incarnation,  with  which  it  stands 
connected  as  an  article  of  faith  in  the  Apostles' 
Creed.  This  continuation  of  the  life  of  Christ 
in  the  Church,  is  as  real  as  the  life  of  the  race 
is  a  continuation  of  the  life  of  the  first  Adam ; 
but  like  the  mystery  of  the  incarnation  itself,  it 
transcends  all  the  laws  of  mere  nature,  and  be- 
comes an  object  of  faith.  According  to  modern 
theology,  the  Church  is  not  an  object  of  faith, 
and  no  mystery  is  connected  with  it.  It  has, 
accordingly,  no  sympathy  with  the  Creed.  The 
Church  being  but  a  voluntary  association  of 
Christians,  outwardly  brought  together,  without 
the  binding  tie  of  a  common  organic  life,  it  be- 
comes an  object,  not  to  be  apprehended  by  faith, 
but  by  the  baldest  common  sense. 


§  17. — THE    CHURCH    AND    THE    REFORMATION. 

Mercersburg  theology  makes  accordingly  pro- 
per account  of  the  ancient  faith  of  the  Church, 


MODERN    THEULOGIY.  55 

as  embodied  in  the  Creed;  as  well  as  of  the 
Church  itself  in  all  ages.  Hence  its  invaluable 
productions  in  the  department  of  Church  history 
(vide  Dr.  Schaff's  Church  History).  While  it 
takes  the  position  that  Protestant  theology  is  an 
advance  over  Catholic  theology,  it  yet  maintains 
that  it  is  the  reproduction  of  the  latter  under  a 
deeper  and  profounder  apprehension  of  its  truths, 
and  not  the  production  of  a  new  theology.  So 
with  the  faith  of  the  Church,  and  the  Church 
itself.  The  Church  of  the  Reformation,  with  its 
faith  and  doctrines,  was  not  the  product  of  any 
individual  or  number  of  individuals,  who  started 
fresh  from  the  Bible  in  reconstructing  the  Church 
and  its  faith  and  doctrines.  It  was  the  result 
of  the  best  life  of  the  CathoHc  Church  itself, 
which  was  tending  and  struggling  toward  this 
end  for  centuries,  until  it  reached  its  culmina- 
tion in  the  great  Reformation. 

Modern  theology  has  no  sense  and  apprecia- 
tion for  any  such  organic  connection  with  the 
past  history  and  life  of  the  Church.  Its  study 
and  labor  in  Church  history  is  rather  to  find 


56  MERCERSBURG    AND 

cause  to  be  confirmed  in  its  theory,  the  very  op- 
posite to  this.  The  Reformation  was,  accord- 
ingly, not  the  result  of  a  life-process,  or  histori- 
cal development;  but  merely  the  work  of  indi- 
vidual men,  who,  finding  the  Church  not  to  their 
idea,  left  it  as  the  synagogue  of  Satan,  and  re- 
constructed a  new  one  on  what  they  considered 
to  be  the  plain  sense  of  the  Bible,  much  in  the 
same  style  in  which  this  is  attempted  by  modern 
sects.  But  this  theory  wrongs  the  Reformation 
in  its  most  vital  parts.  It  is  virtually  giving  up 
the  Reformation  as  a  falling  away;  as  the  anti- 
Christian  power  that  arrays  itself  against  the 
mystery  of  the  incarnation,  of  which  the  Church 
in  all  ages  is  its  continuation  in  the  world. 

§  18. — ROMANIZING   TENDENCY. 

According  to  modern  theology,  these  teach- 
ings of  Mercersburg  Avould  lead  the  Church  back 
to  Rome.  But  how,  it  has  never  been  made  to 
appear.  Certainly  not  by  the  process  of  organic 
development,  which  never  goes  backward.    Only 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  57 

individuals  who  are  not  comprehended  in  this 
organic  process,  go  backward.  The  Church  as 
an  organism  can  never  retrograde.  All  organic 
life  is  bound  to  go  forward;  and  if  Protestant 
Christianity  is  what  Mercersburg  theology  con- 
tends for,  it  can  never  lead  us  back  to  Rome. 
The  great  danger  lies  precisely  in  the  modern 
theory  here  brought  to  view.  Earnest  minds, 
who  accept  it  as  the  true  exposition  of  Protest- 
antism, are  inevitably  carried  over  to  Rome,  to 
escape  its  logical  consequences,  that  would  in- 
gulf them  in  the  abyss  of  infidelity.  The  suc- 
cessful vindication  of  Protestantism  depends, 
therefore,  upon  the  successful  refutation  of  this 
modern  theory  of  the  Church. 


58  MERCERSBURG   AND 


CHAPTER  IV. 


§  19. — THE    OFFICE    OF   THE    MINISTRY. 

/JTOi^HE  office  of  the  ministry,  according  to 
wt^  modern  theology,  is  not  invested  ^vith 
functions  commensurate  with  the  divine 
and  supernatural  facts  and  realities  with 
which  it  has  to  deal,  and  in  whose  ser- 
vice it  has  been  instituted.  It  has  no  power 
to  bind  the  conscience  of  men  in  matters  of 
faith  and  practice,  being  clothed  with  no  bind- 
ing power  of  any  kind.  However  well  a  man 
may  be  accredited  as  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ, 
he  is,  in  no  real  sense,  the  organ  through 
which  Christ  speaks,  whose  words  and  official 
acts  are  to  be  accepted  in  good  faith,  as  being 
in  accordance  with  his  instructions.  Instead  of 
such  faith  in  his  favor,  or  rather  in  favor  of  the 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  59 

truth  he  represents,  in  the  premises,  he  must  al- 
low those  to  whom  he  is  accredited,  the  advan- 
tage of  entertaining  a  doubt  in  what  he  says, 
until  he  convinces  them  by  documentary  or  other 
evidences,  that  he  is  not  misrepresenting  the 
truth,  of  which  they  themselves  are  to  be  the 
judges.  He  has,  accordingly,  no  right  to  ex- 
pect, for  instance,  that  even  the  children  of  the 
Church  should  believe  the  Creed,  until  he  has 
convinced  their  understanding,  that  its  contents 
agree  with  the  teaching  of  the  Bible;  and  not 
even  to  believe  in  the  Bible  itself,  until  he  has 
proved  to  them  that  it  is  the  word  of  God;  and 
that  God's  Word  is  something  which  they  must 
accept  by  faith  unconditionally,  without  asking 
any  farther  troublesome  questions.  But  as  he 
is  not  allowed  to  make  any  such  demand  in  the 
premises,  he  will  have  some  considerable  diffi- 
culty to  find  the  point  where  the  unconditional 
faith  comes  in  spontaneously,  from  which  he  can 
proceed  to  build  them  up  in  the  faith  and  know- 
ledge of  the  truth. 

This  whole  view  of  the  office  of  the  ministry 


60  MERCERSBURG   AND 

is  humiliating  and  degrading,  both  to  Christ  and 
his  ministers.  The  common  courtesies  of  life 
are  denied  to  a  minister  the  moment  he  speaks 
and  acts  in  his  oificial  capacity.  Nothing  that 
he  says  or  does  as  an  accredited  minister  of 
Christ,  is  to  be  received  in  good  faith.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  dignity  and  character  of  his 
office,  or  in  his  relation  to  the  Church  and  to 
Christ,  or  in  the  nature  and  substance  of  the 
message  he  is  commissioned  to  deliver,  that 
should  demand  such  faith  in  the  premises.  He 
has  literally  nothing  to  fall  back  upon,  to  in- 
spire faith  in  them  that  hear  him.  He  must  be 
ready  to  prove  every  word  and  act  of  his,  before 
it  is  accepted  as  being  true.  No  premises  are 
admitted,  from  which  he  may  choose  to  start, 
and  he  is  brought  to  a  dead  lock  at  once.  He 
must  cease  proclaiming  the  gospel,  and  enter  the 
domain  of  philosophical  speculation  as  a  last  re- 
sort, to  find,  if  possible,  an  admitted  premise, 
which  involves  the  whole  system  of  truth  which 
he  is  commissioned  to  preach.  Christ  is  not 
himself  the  truth,  and  the  truth  is  not  to  be  found 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  61 

in  Him,  nor  in  His  Word,  nor  in  His  Church ; 
but  somewhere  in  the  interminable  depth  of  phi- 
losophical speculations,  where  it  has  been  sought 
in  vain  for  four  thousand  years,  until  it  appeared 
in  the  flesh  in  the  person  of  Christ,  who  com- 
missioned His  ministers  to  preach  it — not  to 
prove  it;  to  proclaim  it — not  to  demonstrate  it. 
According  to  Mercersburg  theolog j,the  Church 
embodies  a  continuation  of  the  life  of  Christ  on 
earth,  and  the  office  of  the  ministry  is  a  continua- 
tion of  His  prophetic,  His  priestly  and  kingly 
office.  If  Christ  be  present  in  the  Church,  as 
His  mystical  body.  He  is  not  only  present  in 
His  divine  and  human  nature,  but  also  in  His 
threefold  office,  with  their  divine  and  superna- 
tural functions.  That  office,  with  its  functions, 
is  reproduced  in  the  office  of  the  ministry,  w^hich 
He  Himself  instituted  and  solemnly  invested, 
with  the  promise  to  be  identified  with  it  to  the 
end  of  time.  The  office  of  the  ministry  thus 
stands  in  living,  organic, »and  immediate  relation 
to  Christ,  as  prophet,  priest,  and  king.  The 
prophetic,  priestly,  and  kingly  office,  as  fore- 


62  MBRCERSBURG   AND 

shadowed  in  the  old  dispensation,  and  fully 
realized  in  the  person  of  Christ,  is  thus  carried 
forward  and  perpetuated  in  the  Christian  Church. 
The  Church,  thus  invested  with  the  prophetic 
office,  becomes,  through  her  ministry,  the  teacher 
of  mankind,  and  all  men  are  bound  to  accept  by 
faith,  the  words  of  eternal  life,  which  it  is  com- 
missioned to  proclaim. 

When  the  apostles  preached  the  gospel,  men 
were  expected  to  receive  it  by  faith,  not  blindly, 
by  any  means,  but  just  as  little  on  the  ground 
of  any  extrinsic  evidence  lying  beyond  itself,  but 
was  backed  by  the  demonstration  of  the  divine 
and  supernatural  presence,  by  which  their  teach- 
ings were  inspired.  The  divine  and  supernatu- 
ral, which  thus  formed  the  basis  on  which  their 
teachings  were  accepted  by  faith,  continues  pre- 
sent in  the  Church  for  all  time  to  come,  as  the 
ever-abiding  and  immovable  basis  on  which  men 
now,  and  in  all  past  and  future  ages,  accept,  by 
faith,  the  teachings  of  the  gospel — the  Bible,  as 
being  the  word  of  God,  included.     The  Church 


MODEEN  THEOLOGY.  63 

is  thus,  what  the  Bible  affirms  it  to  be,  the  pillar 
and  ground  of  the  truth. 


§  20. — OBJECTIVE   FAITH.— THE    CREED. 

With  these  premises  in  her  favor,  the  Church 
has  a  right  to  give  formal  cxprosslon  to  her  faith, 
and  to  challenge  its  acceptance  unoonditionally. 
The  Bible  itself  is  an  object  of  faith,  and  its  con- 
tents can  only  be  properly  understood  in  the 
light  of  that  faith  which  we  receive  from  the 
Church.  In  the  light  of  that  faith,  which  we 
bring  to  it,  do  the  internal  evidences  of  the  sa- 
cred Scriptures  carry  with  them  their  full  and 
legitimate  force  in  confirming  and  establishing 
what  has  thus  been  apprehended  by  faith.  With- 
out such  faith  in  the  premises,  the  internal  evi- 
dences of  the  Bible  would  fail  to  establish  its 
own  authenticity  and  inspiration,  and  no  ground 
could  be  gained  for  faith  to  rest  upon.  We  re- 
ceive our  faith  from  the  Church,  as  expressed, 
for  instance,  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  must 


64  MERCERSBURG    AND 

bring  that  faith  with  us,  and  in  the  light  of  it, 
read  the  Bible,  in  order  to  understand  its  con- 
tents— the  contents  of  our  faith,  as  ivell  as  the 
Bible,  which  is,  to  us  Protestants,  the  only  in- 
fallible norm  of  that  faith,  as  the  God-given  safe- 
guard against  the  possible  aberration  from  the 
truth. 

Modern  theology  makes  no  account  of  the 
Creed.  It  has  no  power  to  appreciate  its  in- 
trinsic worth,  or  its  catholicity  and  historical 
value.  It  is,  in  fact,  of  no  manner  of  value  in 
a  system  of  theology,  that  starts  tvithout  faith  in 
any  thing  !  It  does  not  need  the  universal  faith 
of  the  Church  as  a  starting-point.  Its  own  pri- 
vate judgment  can  get  along  w^ell  enough  with- 
out it.  It  gets  its  faith  fresh  from  the  Bible, 
w^hich  is  superior  to  any  old  and  musty  creeds 
of  the  Church,  which  only  hamper  the  free  exer- 
cise of  a  more  enlightened  judgment.  But  we 
have  already  seen  the  dead  lock,  to  which  even 
a  little  child  can  bring  it,  when  forced  to  make 
good  its  flippant  and  silly  pretensions. 

Mercersburg  theology  does  not  hesitate  to  ac- 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  65 

knoTvledge  that  it  stands  in  full  sympathy  with 
the  universal  faith  of  the  Church,  as  expressed 
in  the  Creed.  It  is  of  infinite  importance  to 
find  such  universally  admitted  premises,  from 
which  we  can  proceed  in  building  up  the  Church 
in  the  faith  and  knowledge  of  the  truth.  Here 
is  sometliing  to  start  upon ;  something  that  chal- 
lenges our  acceptance,  on  the  ground  that  it  has 
been  admitted  by  the  universal  Church  in  all 
ases.  What  an  advantaoje  this  in  the  catechisa- 
tion  and  instruction  of  children  in  a  communion 
where  proper  account  is  made  of  the  Creed !  It 
is,  besides,  a  bond  of  union,  that  still  binds  all 
Christians  together  in  the  unity  of  a  common 
faith,  which  all  their  dire  conflicts  and  divisions 
could  not  destroy.  This  is  itself  a  stupendous 
fact,  challenging  implicit  faith,  that  what  has 
under  such  circumstances  been  universally  and 
in  all  ages  held  as  true,  must  be  true  indeed. 
It  is  only  equalled  by  the  same  unanimity  with 
which  the  Bible  has  been  accepted  as  the  word 
of  God,  which  is  the  normative  rule  of  faith,  as 
expressed  in  the  Creed.      And,   as  such,   they 


6Q  MERCERSBURG   AND 

cannot  be  separated.  They  stand  or  fall  to- 
gether. As  long  as  the  Creed  is  accepted  as  an 
expression  of  our  undoubted  Christian  faith,  the 
Bible  will  be  accepted  as  the  undoubted  word  of 
God,  and  as  long  as  the  Bible  is  revered  as  the 
undoubted  word  of  God,  will  the  Creed  be  re- 
vered as  our  undoubted  Christian  faith. 

There  is  a  necessary  and  inseparable  relation 
between  Creed  and  Bible,  without  an  implied  co- 
ordination. The  Creed  is  the  expression  of  our 
undoubted  Christian 'faith,  the  Bible  the  un- 
doubted and  infallible  norm  of  its  contents.  Se- 
parate them,  and  you  destroy  the  unity  of  faith 
on  the  one  hand,  and  reject  the  Bible  as  its  in- 
fallible rule  on  the  other.  If  we  set  aside  the 
Creed,  we  give  up  our  common  faith ;  and  if  we 
go  to  gather  our  faith  fresh  from  the  Bible,  we 
shall  have  as  many  different  kinds  of  faith  as 
there  are  different  apprehensions  of  its  contents. 
The  Bible  is  no  longer  the  infallible  rule  of  an 
undoubted  and  universally  accepted  faith,  but 
is  made  the  rule  for  any  number  of  conflicting 
kinds  of  faith  (falsely  so  called),  which  is  but  a 


MODEllN    THEOLOGY.  67 

mockery  of  both  faith  and  the  word  of  God. 
Both  suffer  alike,  and  the  inevitable  result  of 
such  a  separation,  would  be  the  rejection  of  both. 

Modern  theology  is  unwittingly  paving  the 
way  for  just  such  a  sad  result;  and  the  misera- 
ble sect-sj^stem  which  it  encourages,  is  hatching 
out  a  brood  of  skeptics  and  infidels,  who  will 
learn  to  despise  the  authority  of  the  Bible  with 
as  much  zeal  as  they  are  now  taught  to  despise 
the  authority  of  the  Church. 

But  the  Creed  should  be  cherished  for  still 
another  reason.  It  is  not  only  important  as 
reaching  back  through  all  past  ages  of  the 
Church,  but  is  looking  forward  in  the  future- 
Being:  the  bond  that  still  holds  Christians  to. 
gether  in  the  unity  of  their  common  faith,  it 
only  requires  to  make  proper  account  of  this 
fact,  to  find  that  the  Creed  is  the  basis  and  start- 
ing-point for  the  future  unity  of  the  Church, 
which  we  all  so  ardently  desire. 


68  MERCERSBURG    AND 


CHAPTER  V. 


§    21.  —  RULE     OF    FAITH. 

)ERCERSBURG  theology  accepts,  with- 
out reservation,  the  old  Protestant  doc- 
trine, that  the  Bible  is  the  only  infalli- 
ble rule  of  faith;  but  rejects  the  mo- 
dern perversion  of  this  doctrine,  that 
it  is  the  only  source  of  faith.  According  to  mo- 
dern theology,  we  derive  our  faith  directly  from 
the  Bible,  and  the  rule  of  our  faith,  to  be  derived 
from  it,  is  every  man's  private  judgment.  That, 
and  not  the  Bible,  is  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith,  according  to  modern  theology.  It  reverses 
the  order  of  faith  and  knowledge.  Our  faith  is 
made  to  rest  on  what  we  know  or  understand  to 
be  the  teachings  of  the  Bible,  according  to  which 
there  are  as  many  diiferent  kinds  of  faith  as 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  69 

there  are  different  apprehensions  of  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Bible. 

According  to  Mercersburg  theology,  we  must 
believe  in  order  to  understand.  Whatever  effect 
knowledge  may  have  to  confirm  and  strengthen 
our  faith,  faith  embraces  always,  from  first  to 
last,  something  more  and  deeper,  than  our  know- 
ledge of  its  contents.  We  may  have  faith,  but 
may  not  have  the  knowledge  of  all  it  includes, 
and  all  that  it  excludes.  The  rule  of  faith  de- 
termines this,  as  far  as  its  contents  can  be  known. 
We  derive  our  faith  from  the  Church — from  the 
rule  of  faith  our  knowledge  of  its  contents.  We 
bring  that  faith  with  us,  when  we  go  to  the  Bible 
as  the  rule  of  faith,  and  in  the  light  of  both  we 
learn  to  understand  more  and  more  their  sense 
and  meaning. 

But  let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  Bible  is 
given  to  the  Church  as  the  rule  of  faith,  and  that 
she  has  brought  her  faith  to  it  and  studied  it  for 
centuries.  The  accumulated  knowledge  or  ap- 
prehension of  its  truth,  thus  reached,  has,  from 
time  to  time,  been  reduced  into  regular  order 


70  MERCERSBURG^   AND 

and  system,  which  constitutes  the  theology  of 
the  Church.  We  thus  not  only  receive  our  faith 
from  the  Church,  but  the  most  of  what  we  really 
know  and  understand  of  the  teachings  of  the 
Bible.  For  an  individual  to  sit  in  judgment 
over  the  faith  and  doctrines  of  the  Church,  with 
nothing  but  an  open  Bible  before  him,  with  no 
previous  faith  in  his  heart,  and  nothing  but  his 
private  judgment  in  his  noddle,  is  simply  an  ar- 
rogant presumption,  which  exalts  individual  con- 
ceit above  the  faith,  the  wisdom  and  intelligence 
of  the  whole  Church,  past  and  present. 

The  progressive  development  of  theological 
science,  or  a  clearer  and  profounder  apprehen- 
sion of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  is  an  im- 
portant part  of  the  organic  development  of  the 
life  of  the  Church,  and  is  not  the  product,  in 
any  way,  of  independent  individualism,  which 
has  never  contributed  any  thing  positive  in  set- 
tling a  single  point  in  theological  science;  but 
is  capable  only  of  reproducing  old  errors  under 
new  forms,  whose  fallacies  have  been  exposed 
time  and  again. 


MODERN  THEOLOGY.  71 

§  22. — THE    SACRED    SCRIPTURES. 

Mercersburg  theology  is  also  free  to  admit, 
that  the  Bible  carries  within  itself  the  evidence 
of  being  the  word  of  God.  But  to  what  does  it 
authenticate  itself  as  the  word  of  God?  Is  it 
to  faith,  or  to  the  understanding?  We  know 
by  faith,  that  the  Bible  is  the  word  and  truth  of 
God,  and  not  otherwise.  It  is  as  much  an  ob- 
ject of  faith  as  any  thing  else  that  is  divine  and 
supernatural.  That  the  Bible  is  God's  word 
and  truth  is  self-evident  to  faith,  and  to  faith 
alone.  There  is  that  in  it,  which  fully  harmo- 
nizes and  meets  the  wants  of  our  spiritual  na- 
ture, which  accepts  it  as  truth  on  its  bare  pre- 
sentation. It  does  not  argue  and  reason  on  the 
subject.  It  does  not  require  any  proof,  as  little 
as  any  other  self-evident  truth  does.  The  Bible 
is  to  faith  the  word  of  God,  independent,  in  fact, 
of  all  internal  and  external  proof.  It  is  accepted 
as  we  accept  any  other  self-evident  truth  or  uni- 
versal proposition. 

If  the  position  of  modern  theology,  however, 
be  taken,  that  the  Bible  must  first  authenticate 


72  MERCERSBURG    AND 

itself  to  the  understanding,  before  we  can  accept 
it  and  believe  in  it  as  the  word  of  God,  then  it 
is  reduced  to  the  nature  of  a  minor  proposition, 
that  requires  to  be  established  by  proof.  Whether 
the  proof  may  be  found  inside  or  outside  of  its 
pages,  is  all  the  same — it  has  to  be  produced, 
and  be  satisfactory  to  the  understanding.  The 
proof,  of  course,  must  be  such  as  can  be  com- 
prehended by  the  understanding,  which  thus  sits 
in  judgment  in  the  case.  The  deeper,  inner, 
spiritual  sense  which  runs  through  the  Bible 
from  beginning  to  end,  cannot  be  brought  in  as 
evidence  in  the  case,  because  it  is  beyond  the 
grasp  of  the  bare  understanding.  The  very  evi- 
dence on  which  its  authentication  depends,  is 
thus  ruled  out  in  deciding  the  question  for  faith, 
whether  the  Bible  be  the  word  of  God. 

Strange  that  any  professed  Christian  should 
be  willing  to  let  the  trial  go  on  before  such  an 
incompetent  tribunal,  and  accept  the  results  as 
the  ground  of  his  faith  in  the  Bible !  And  yet 
this  is  precisely  what  modern  theology  and  what 
undisguised  Rationalism   are  doing.      We  will 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  73 

say  nothing  in  regard  to  which  is  the  more  con- 
sistent in  its  conclusions.  It  is  enough  to  know, 
that  they  arrive  at  very  different  results,  which 
involves  the  question  in  sufficient  doubt  and  un- 
certainty to  justify  us  in  rejecting  their  premises. 
But  no  such  different  and  opposite  conclusions 
are  arrived  at  by  those  who  apprehend  the  Bible 
h  J  faith.  No  one  who  has  ever  apprehended  the 
deeper,  inner,  spiritual  sense  of  the  Bible,  has 
come  to  any  other  conclusion,  than  that  it  is  the 
word  and  truth  of  God;  and  no  one  has  ever 
thrown  a  shadow  of  doubt  on  this  point.  They 
may  differ  in  comprehending  its  contents  in  de- 
tail, or  in  all  its  heights  and  depths,  according 
to  the  measure  of  faith  given  unto  them ;  but  as 
to  its  divine  origin  and  truth,  they  are  a  cloud 
of  witnesses  that  proclaim  it  with  one  universal 
accord. 


74  MERCERSBURG    AND 

§  23. — SUBJECTIVE   FAITH. 

It  is  a  comfort  to  know,  that  men's  faith  is 
often  better  than  their  theology;  so  that  while 
we  are  bound  to  reject  their  views  and  theories 
on  faith,  we  can  afford  to  admit,  that  they  may 
not  be  destitute  of  faith  itself.  It  is  what  Mer- 
cersburg  theology  contends  for,  that  our  under- 
standing of  spiritual  things  is  not  their  measure 
and  criterion.  But  to  entertain  and  cherish 
views  of  spiritual  things  contrary  to  their  nature, 
is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  extremely  dangerous ; 
especially  to  those  who  do  make  their  under- 
standing of  spiritual  things  the  rule  and  mea- 
sure of  their  contents.  This  holds  true  in  re- 
ference to  all  matters  of  faith,  but  especially  in 
reference  to  faith  itself^  which  is  an  object  of 
sdf -apprehension ;  that  is,  faith  must  apprehend 
itself,  and  reveal  its  nature  to  the  understanding, 
in  order  to  have  any  rational  conception  of  it. 
Where  there  is  no  such  self-apprehension  of 
faith,  the  understanding  can  have  no  conception 
of  its  nature,  and  its  views  on  the  subject  are 


MODERN    THEOLOGY.  75 

mere  conjectures  and  speculations,  which  satisfy- 
neither  the  heart  nor  the  understanding,  because 
they  are  destitute  of  that  certitude  which  we 
have  a  right  to  expect  in  a  proposition  on  so 
important  a  subject. 

In  reversing  the  order  of  faith  and  know- 
ledge, as  is  done  by  modern  theology,  faith  itself 
is  made  to  he  something  very  different  from  what 
it  is  in  reality.  The  question  of  order  here  in- 
volves two  radically  different  views  of  faith 
itself,  so  widely  different,  indeed,  that  they  are 
virtually  made  to  exclude  each  other. 

According  to  Mercersburg  theology,  there  is 
in  the  constitution  of  man's  higher  and  spiritual 
nature,  an  innate  power  of  apprehending  spirit- 
ual and  divine  things,  which,  when  excited  into 
exercise  by  the  lively  preaching  of  the  gospel,  or 
by  being  brought  into  immediate  and  proper  re- 
lation to  divine  and  spiritual  realities,  constitutes 
Faith.  By  the  exercise  of  this  power  "he  en- 
ters into  communion  with  the  invisible  and 
spiritual  world ;  into  the  heart  and  mind  of  God 
himself,  and  draws  from    thence  new  spiritual 


76  MEBCERSBURG   AND 

life  for  his  own  being."'*'  However  deeply 
fallen  and  depraved,  our  higher  nature  is  still 
conscious  of  its  divine  origin,  and  longs  for  re- 
union and  re- communion  with  God,  and  the 
spiritual  world  from  which  it  sprung.  Like  the 
prodigal  son,  the  type  of  the  Gentile  world,  that 
lives  without  God,  it  cannot  be  totally  lost  to 
the  consciousness  that  God  is  its  father  and  a 
lost  paradise  its  proper  home,  for  which  it  longs 
and  sighs,  in  the  midst  of  the  beggarly  elements 
of  this  present  world. 

Modern  theology,  on  the  contrary,  proceeds 
on  the  assumption,  that  there  is  no  such  inherent 
l^ower  in  man.  Whether  it  assumes  the  infidel 
position,  that  he  never  had  a  spiritual  nature, 
grounded  in  the  constitution  of  his  being,  or  the 
position,  that  it  was  entirely  lost  by  the  fall,  it 
amounts  to  the  same  thing.  He  has  not  that 
nature  now,  and  no  such  power  is  inherent  in 
him  by  which  he  can  apprehend  spiritual  things. 
He  must  accordingly  apprehend  them,  if  at  all, 


*  Dr.  Nevin. 


MODERN  THEOLOGY.  77 

not  by  any  spiritual,  but  by  tlie  intellectual 
powers  of  his  being,  and  thus  know,  before  he 
can  believe.  He  must  be  taught  to  know  that 
there  is  a  God,  on  evidences  that  convince  his 
understanding,  before  he  can  believe  there  is  a 
God,  and  so  on  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.  But 
such  heMef  in  God,  is  something  very  different 
from  faith  in  God.  The  truth  of  God  is  not  re- 
vealed to  faith,  but  to  the  understanding;  and 
the  intellectual  assent  of  the  mind  to  the  truth 
thus  presented  and  apprehended,  constitutes 
faith.  But,  contingent  on  mere  evidence,  it 
must  ever  be  a  very  uncertain  and  doubtful 
faith,  liable  to  be  driven  about  by  every  wind  of 
doctrine,  because  it  lacks  that  certitude  which 
true  faith  implies,  and  which  no  amount  of  mere 
proof,  nor  evidence,  nor  logical  reasoning  can 
ever  produce.  It  is  not  itself  the  evidence  or 
authentication  of  things  not  seen,  but  rests  on 
evidences  lying  wholly  beyond  itself  and  aside 
of  the  object  on  which  it  is  exercised.  We  shall 
reserve  our  concluding  remarks  on  this  point, 
and  embody  them  in  a  separate   section  on  the 


78  MERCERSBURG   AND 

NATURE  OF  EVIDENCES,  in  which  we  shall  give, 
with  the  indulgence  of  the  reader,  a  few  simple 
and  familiar  illustrations  of  a  subject  involving 
perhaps  the  most  important  points  of  difference 
between  the  two  systems  under  consideration ; 
and,  at  the  same  time,  by  implication,  the  radi- 
cal difference  between  Mercersburg  and  Rome. 


MODERN    THEOLOGY.  79 


CHAPTER  YI. 


§  24. — ON  THE  NATURE  OF  EVIDENCES. 

CCORDING  to  modern  theology,  faith 
is  the  assent  of  the  mind  to  the  truth, 
on  the  conviction  produced  by  the 
force  or  authority  of  evidences.  There 
is,  substantiaUy,  no  difference  between 
this  position  and  that  of  Rome.  The  premises 
are  the  same,  and  they  differ  only  with  respect 
to  the  kind  of  evidence  or  authority,  which 
is  accepted  as  credible  and  satisfactory.  In 
both  cases  faith  is  assent  to  an  established 
truth,  established  by  recognized  authority.  Ac- 
cording to  Mercersburg  theology,  faith  is  the 
apprehension  of  a  self-evident  truth,  that  re- 
quires no  proof  or  authority  beyond  itself.  The 
result  on  the  heart  and  mind  is  not  the  same. 
In  the  one  case  a  moral  certainty  is  established ; 


80  MERCERSBURG    AND 

in  the  other  an  absolute  certainty.  This  impor- 
tant difference  lies,  primarily,  in  the  nature  of 
things  and  our  relation  to  them. 

Facts  that  surround  us,  and  with  which  we 
have  to  deal,  are  of  two  kinds, — trayisient  and 
continuous.  The  truth  of  the  former  is  far  more 
difficult  to  reach  than  that  of  the  latter.  Ex- 
isting but  for  a  time,  and  often  but  momentari- 
ly, transient  facts  are  evident  to  but  few,  who 
can  bear  testimony  in  reference  to  them ;  while 
continuous  facts  are  permanently  evident  to  all 
who  take  the  trouble  to  examine  them.  Hence 
the  truth  of  the  former  has  to  be  established 
by  evidence,  while  the  latter  do  not  require  this, 
being  self-evident.  We  shall  give  an  example 
of  both,  and  then  see  how  they  apply  to  the 
greatest  of  all  facts — Christianity. 

'■^  John  struck  Peter.''  This  declaration  as- 
sumes one  of  those  transient  facts,  which  require 
to  be  established  by  proof  or  evidence,  before 
its  truth  can  be  assented  to  by  the  mind.  As  a 
mere  proposition  or  assertion,  we  can  neither 
believe  it  nor  reject  it.     It  may  be  or  may  not 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  81 

be  true,  that  John  did  so  bad  a  thing  as  to  strike 
Peter.  Who  knows?  James  and  Isaac  know, 
who  saw  it;  and  they  testify  to  its  truth.  As 
they  are  credible  witnesses,  we  accept  their  tes- 
timony as  evidence,  and  on  the  strength  or  au- 
thority of  it,  believe  that  John  did  commit  the 
assault  on  Peter.  There  is  a  reasonable  and 
moral  certainty  established  that  such  is  the  fact, 
and  the  criminal  law  adjudges  him  guilty,  and 
the  moral  law  approves  the  finding. 

But  we,  who  hear  and  believe  this  testimony, 
and  join  in  the  verdict,  have  not  that  certitude 
of  the  fact,  which  would  enable  us  to  venture 
our  salvation  on  its  truth,  by  taking  an  oath 
that  John  did  strike  Peter.  There  is  no  rea- 
sonable doubt  that  he  did.  We  are  morally 
certain  of  it,  on  the  authority  of  unquestionable 
testimony;  but  there  is  no  absolute  certainty 
established ;  and  no  amount  of  evidence  can  do 
this.  It  is  not  in  the  nature  of  proof  or  evi- 
dence to  do  it.  The  moral  or  reasonable  cer- 
tainty reached  by  such  a  process,  can  never,  of 
itself,   or  by  any  amount  of  additional  proof, 


82  MERCERSBURG   AND 

rise  to  absolute  certainty.  When  you  come  to 
define  it,  it  is,  and  never  can  be  any  thing  more 
than,  belief.  Only  those  who  hnow  that  John 
struck  Peter  (the  witnesses  in  the  case),  have 
an  absolute  certainty  of  the  fact;  and  they  did 
not  get  their  knowledge  of  the  fact  by  any  such 
a  process. 

Hence  it  is  that  human  judgment  and  courts 
of  justice  are  liable  to  err,  even  when  declara- 
tions are  established  beyond  all  reasonable 
doubt.  They  know  nothing  of  the  facts  them- 
selves, but  judge  according  to  the  evidence  in 
the  case.  But  all  things  are  known  to  God, 
and,  therefore,  there  can  be  no  error  in  His 
judgment.  He  stands  so  immediately  related 
to  all  things  by  His  omnipresence,  that  He 
Himself  is  witness  to  them,  even  the  secret 
thoughts  and  intentions  of  the  heart. 

We  know  nothing  but  what  is,  or  can  be. made 
self-evident  to  us,  and  only  those,  to  whom  the 
truth  is  thus  known  in  any  case,  are  competent 
to  bear  testimony  to  the  truth.  A  man  who 
would  present  himself  as  a  witness,  that  Jolm 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  83 

struck  Peter,  because  he  heard  others  say  so,  or 
swear  to  it,  would  be  laughed  at  and  sent  about 
his  business. 

This  is  but  a  simple  case,  but  it  illustrates  an 
important  principle.  It  sJiozvs  us  the  nature  of 
evidences,  and  what  they  can  and  what  they  cannot 
establish ; — that  by  their  means  we  can  come  to  a 
belief,  hut  not  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth;  and 
that,  unless  we  possess  this  knowledge  by  reach- 
ing it  in  some  other  way,  we  are  not  qualified  to 
bear  witness  to  the  truth.  But  let  us  consider 
the  next  case. 

'■'■The  sun  shines."  This  is  not  a  transient, 
but  a  continuous  fact.  The  sun  shone  in  the 
days  of  the  Apostles,  and  it  shines  in  our  days. 
If  needs  be,  the  truth  of  this  can  be  established 
by  evidence ;  because  there  are  credible  witnesses 
who  can  testify  to  the  fact.  As  clear  a  case  can 
be  made  out  in  this  way  as  the  one  we  have  just 
considered,  to  say  the  least  of  it.  But  it  needs 
no  proof.  It  is  not  on  trial  before  a  court  and 
jury;  and  if  it  be,  we  do  not  wait  to  hear  their 
verdict,  whether  it  shines  or  not.     We  know  it, 


84  MERCERSBURG   AND 

and  in  advance  of  all  such  proceedings,  and  all 
arguments  and  reasoning  on  the  subject.  We 
know  it,  because  it  is  self-evident  to  all  who  will 
open  their  ejes  and  look  at  it.  A  man  who  has 
no  eyes,  or  who  has  them,  but  cannot  see,  must, 
of  course,  accept  it  on  the  testimony  or  autho- 
rity of  others.  On  the  strength  of  that,  he  may 
believe,  but  does  not  know  that  the  sun  shines. 
Such  mere  evidence,  or  mere  authority  and  be- 
lief, does  not  give  eyes  to  the  blind.  It  does 
the  poor  man  no  good.  It  does  not  open  his 
eyes,  and  enable  him  to  see  the  sun;  which  is 
the  necessary  condition  on  which  the  sun  can  be 
of  any  benefit  to  him. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  two  cases  before  us. 
The  first  is  a  case,  the  truth  of  which  is  accepted 
on  the  simple  authority  of  those,  who  are  ad- 
mitted to  know  the  facts;  or  by  submitting  the 
case  to  a  regular  process  of  examination  into  the 
evidences,  on  which  its  truth  can  be  established ; — 
but  all  of  which  leads  nobody  to  a  knowledge  of 
the  truth.  The  other  is  a  case,  in  which  every 
body  who  will,  can  come  to  a  knowledge  of  the 


MODERN    THEOLOGY.  85 

truth,  in  advance  and  independent  of  such  a  pro- 
cess. Both  cases  are  equally  clear,  and  a  bare 
presentation  of  them  is  sufficient  to  make  them 
self-evident  to  the  mind. 

But  how  do  these  two  cases  apply  to  the  great- 
est of  all  facts,  Christianity  ? 

To  those  who  are  for  ever  in  search  of  the 
truth  by  the  process  indicated  in  the  first  case, 
the  words,  in  a  modified  but  true  sense  apply : 
"Ever  learning,  and  never  able  to  come  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  truth."  2  Tim.  iii.  7.  And  the 
words:  "If  any  man  think  that  he  knoweth  any 
thing  (by  that  process),  he  knoweth  nothing  yet 
as  he  ought  to  know."  1  Cor.  viii.  2. 

To  those  who  come  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth 
on  the  principle  indicated  in  the  second  case,  the 
words  of  the  Samaritans,  addressed  to  a  witness 
of  Jesus,  apply:  "Now  we  believe,  not  because 
of  thy  saying:  for  we  have  heard  him  ourselves, 
and  know  that  he  is  indeed  the  Christ,  the  Sa- 
viour of  the  world."  John  iv.  42. 

Christianity  is  not  a  transient  fact,  like  the 
case  of  John  and  Peter;  but  a  continuous  and 


86  MEECERSBUPtG   AND 

permanent  fact,  like  that  of  the  sun,  or  the  ever- 
lasting hills.  As  such  its  truth  can  be  esta- 
blished on  the  authority  of  the  most  unquestion- 
able evidences;  but  its  truth  does  not  rest  and 
depend  on  any  kind  or  any  amount  of  mere  evi- 
dences ;  but  is  open  to  the  immediate  apprehen- 
sion of  all  who  come  to  stand  in  immediate  rela- 
tion to  it,  and  bring  with  them  the  power  of  ap- 
prehending it — faith — to  which  it  is  self-evident 
on  its  bare  presentation. 

We  have  already  admitted  that  a  clear  case 
can  be  established,  that  the  sun  shone  in  the 
days  of  the  Apostles,  and  that  it  shines  to  this 
day,  by  any  amount  of  credible  testimony.  So 
has  the  truth  of  Christianity  been  proved  a  thou- 
sand times  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  as  much 
so  as  any  other  truth  has  ever  been  established 
by  evidence.  And  in  the  absence  of  any  evi- 
dence to  the  contrary,  the  man,  who  pretends  to 
deny  it,  is  either  a  fool  or  a  knave.  He  cannot, 
as  a  sane  and  an  honest  man,  even  deny  the  truth 
that  John  struck  Peter,  after  hearing  the  testi- 
mony in  the  case.     He  is  compelled  to  believe  it. 


MODERN    THEOLOGY.  87 

But  this  is  not  exactly  what  is  wanted,  and 
not  the  kind  of  faith  which  Christianity  demands 
and  calls  for,  and  which  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel  (the  bare  presentation  or  proclamation  of 
its  truth)  is  intended  to  produce.  A  man  wants 
to  know  for  himself,  that  the  sun  shines,  without 
which  the  sun  can  be  of  no  benefit  to  him.  All 
the  authority,  and  testimony  and  argument  in 
the  world  do  not  give  him  that  knowledge  of  the 
fact,  which  a  single  glance  at  the  sun  would 
afford.  The  knowledge  of  the  truth  for  which 
the  soul  longs  and  desires,  is  not  obtained  by 
any  such  a  process  of  heaping  evidence  upon 
evidence  from  reason,  from  Scripture,  from  his- 
tory, or  from  any  where  else.  It  is  only  ob- 
tained by  being  brought  into  immediate  relation 
to  the  truth  itself.  The  faith  which  apprehends 
Christianity  as  absolutely  true,  is  not  the  cold 
intellectual  assent  of  the  mind,  which  is  given  in 
I  he  case  of  John  and  Peter;  but  the  exercise  of 
a  perceptive  power,  to  which  that  truth  becomes 
self-evident;  and  by  which  we  know  even  more 
certainly  that  it  is  the  truth,  than  James  and 


05  MERCERSBURG   AND 

Isaac  know  that  John  struck  Peter,  or  than  any 
one  of  us  knows,  that  the  sun  shines,  from  the 
evidences  of  our  senses. 

Mere  beliefs  such  as  we  have  seen  to  result 
from  evidence  of  proof  in  the  case  of  John  and 
Peter,  or  in  the  case  of  the  hlind  man,  who  be- 
lieves that  the  sun  shines  on  the  authority  and 
testimony  of  others, — is  not  faith,  that  myste- 
rious power  in  man,  which  apprehends  the  spi- 
ritual and  invisible,  and  which  gives  us  a  greater 
certitude  even  than  the  evidences  of  our  senses. 
AVe  know  that  the  sun  shines,  which  is  external 
and  visible  to  the  eye ;  but  we  know  still  more 
certainly,  that  we  possess  an  internal  and  invisi- 
ble power,  which  enables  us  to  see  the  sun,  and 
to  discern  it,  and  to  know,  that  what  is  thus 
taken  in  by  the  senses,  is  not  a  delusion,  a  vision 
and  a  dream.  By  means  of  the  eye,  as  the  or- 
gan of  the  power  of  vision,  we  see  the  sun  shine. 
By  means  of  something  lying  back  of  that  power, 
we  know  that  it  shines.  That  power  we  call 
faith  (or  if  you  prefer  the  term,  our  higher  rea- 
son), the  ultimate  ground  to  which  all  our  know- 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  89 

ledge  must  be  referred.  Even  the  second-hand 
or  indirect  knowledge  gained  in  the  case  of  John 
and  Peter,  and  the  whole  process  of  reasoning 
required  to  reach  it,  rest  ultimately  on  faith; 
existing  both  in  the  tvitnesseSy  who  testify  on 
oath,  and  in  the  Judges  in  the  case,  who  have 
faith  in  the  validity  of  that  oath.  Without  faith 
in  the  credibility  of  witnesses,  or  faith  in  the 
premises,  nothing  can  be  proved,  nothing  esta- 
blished even  to  a  reasonable  certainty.  All 
would  be  doubt  and  confusion.  Reason  itself 
would  be  dethroned.  Courts  of  justice  and  equity 
would  cease  to  exist,  and  the  whole  social  fabric 
would  fall  to  pieces,  for  the  want  of  that  binding 
force  which  holds  it  together,  that  mysterious 
power,  faith,  the  foundation  of  reason  itself,  the 
ground  and  life-spring  of  all  its  powers  and  acti- 
vities. 

Christianity  is  an  object  of  faith  in  the  sense 
here  presented.  Its  glorious  truth  can  only  be 
known  and  be  of  any  real  benefit  to  man,  when 
apprehended  as  self-evident  to  faith;  as  in  the 
case  of  the  sun,  which  can  be  of  benefit  only  to 


90  MERCERSBURG    AND 

those  who  see  it.  Without  the  absolute  celtainty 
of  its  truth,  which  faith  in  it  implies,  its  light 
would  not  be  a  guide  to  our  feet.  We  would  be, 
spiritually,  in  the  condition  of  the  blind  man, 
and  could  not,  from  our  knowledge  of  its  truth, 
bear  witness  and  proclaim,  that  Christianity  is 
the  true  religion ;  that  Christ  is  the  Saviour  of 
the  world;  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God.  Our  con- 
viction, derived  from  mere  testimony,  would  not 
enable  us  to  do  this.  James  and  Isaac,  on  the 
contrary,  do  not  hesitate  to  declare,  that  John 
struck  Peter,  and  do  not  hesitate  for  a  moment 
to  venture  their  salvation  on  its  truth,  by  taking 
a  solemn  oath  to  that  effect — and  why?  Be- 
cause they  know  it  to  be  the  truth.  But  the 
mere  lawyer,  the  judge  and  the  jury,  cannot  do 
this.  They  cannot  thus  venture  their  salvation 
on  the  conviction  and  knowledge  of  the  truth 
from  evidence  alone,  however  strong  and  unques- 
tionable the  authority  may  be,  on  which  the  evi- 
dences rest.  And  how  could  a  Christian  minis- 
ter and  a  Christian  people  venture  their  salva- 
tion on  the  truth  of  Christianity,  if  they  did  not 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  91 

know  more  about  it,  than  such  mere  evidences 
afford?  Christianity  itself  demands  of  us,  to 
venture  our  salvation  upon  it,  by  accepting  it  as 
our  only  hope  in  life  and  death.  But  such  a 
demand  would  neither  be  just  nor  reasonable,  if 
the  absolute  certainty  of  its  truth  and  reliability 
could  not  be  gained:  as  little  as  it  would  be  just 
and  reasonable  to  allow  a  man  to  take  a  solemn 
oath,  that  John  struck  Peter,  who  was  not,  from 
his  own  personal  knowledge,  absolutely  certain 
that  such  was  the  fact.  The  ground  of  our  hope, 
upon  which  we  can  venture  our  salvation,  must 
be  susceptible  of  becoming  absolutely  certain  and 
reliable.  Those  who  venture  into  the  eternal 
world  without  this  certitude,  go  into  it  blind,  and 
will  remain  ingulfed  in  darkness  for  evermore. 
Their  belief,  which  did  them  no  good  in  this  life, 
will  do  them  no  good  in  the  world  to  come.  It 
failed  to  lead  them  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth 
here ;  it  will  fail  to  do  so  hereafter. 

All  who  can  bear  testimony  to  the  truth,  that 
the  sun  shines,  are  living  witnesses,  at  the  same 
time,  that  all  -v^ho  will  exercise  their  power  of 


92  MERCERSBURa   AND 

vision,  can  know  it  for  themselves.  The  "wit- 
nesses of  Jesus,  in  all  ages,  have  testified  to  the 
same  thing  in  reference  to  our  holy  Christianity. 
The  writings  of  the  Apostles  are  full  of  it ;  the 
martyrs  for  the  truth  have  joyfully  sealed  it 
w".th  their  blood ;  the  dying  saints  have  triumph- 
antly confessed  it;  every  true  minister  of  the 
gospel  is  a  witness  to  its  truth ;  and  all  true  be- 
lievers join  with  one  accord  in  the  confession  of 
the  Samaritans:  ''Now  we  believe,  not  because 
of  thy  saying  ;  for  we  have  heard  him  ourselves, 
and  know  that  this  is  indeed  the  Christ,  the 
Saviour  of  the  world." 

Christianity  is  a  fact;  not  a  transient,  but  a 
continuous  fact.  As  such,  it  is  self-evident,  not 
to  every  body,  but  to  those  who  apprehend  it  by 
faith.  We  do  not,  therefore,  claim  for  Chris- 
tianity any  thing  that  is  not  included  in  the 
premises,  when  we  say,  that  it  is  an  object  of 
faith.  We  make  the  same  claim  in  favor  of  all 
other  continuous  facts.  Faith  in  Christianity, 
while  it  does  emphatically  differ  from  mere 
natural   hdief,  does  not,   in   itself,   differ  from 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  93 

natural  faith.  Psychologically  considered,  faith 
is  of  the  same  nature,  whether  its  object  is  the 
natural  or  the  supernatural.  By  mere  belief, 
we  know  literally  nothing  (as  we  ought  to 
know).  What  little  we  do  know  (in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word),  we  know  by  faith,  because 
it  is  apprehended  as  self-evident  by  faith, 
whether  it  comprehends  a  natural  or  a  super- 
natural truth,  both  of  which  have  their  ultimate 
ground  in  God.  We  have  no  right  to  refuse 
our  assent  to,  much  less  reject  any  tiling^ 
whether  natural  or  supernatural,  human  or  di- 
vine, because,  forsooth,  we  cannot  arrive  at  an 
absolute  certainty  of  its  truth  by  the  mere  pro- 
cess and  evidence  of  reason.  Whether  the  truth 
of  any  thing  is  susceptible  of  becoming  abso- 
lutely certain  to  us,  depends  upon  whether  it  is 
susceptible  of  becoming  self-evident.  We  have 
accordingly  no  right  in  the  premises  to  reject 
the  claim  in  favor  of  any  fact  which  professes 
to  be  thus  susceptible,  and  thus  prejudge  it  in 
advance.  In  order  to  determine  whether  its 
claims   are    according   to   truth,  we   must  test 


94  MERCERSBURG   AND 

those  claims.  We  must  accordingly  allow  Chris- 
tianity to  make  what  claims  it  pleases,  and  try  it 
on  the  merits  of  those  claims.  It  claims  to  be 
an  object  of  faith;  an  object  that  is  susceptible 
to  become  self-evident,  and  its  truth  and  relia- 
bility to  become  absolutely  certain.  To  test 
this  claim  fairly,  we  are  bound  in  all  honesty 
and  sincerity  to  place  ourselves  into  such  imme- 
diate relation  to  it,  by  which  it  may,  if  true,  be- 
come thus  self-evident  to  faith.  Millions  upon 
millions  have  done  this  in  godly  sincerity  and 
child-like  simplicity,  and  all,  with  one  accord, 
testify  to  its  truth;  while  those  who  reject 
Christianity  have  never  done  this.  Hence  it  is, 
that  the  truth  of  God  is  revealed  to  child-like 
faith,  and  not  to  the  pride  of  human  reason.  If 
anybody  wants  to  know  to  what  straits  infidels 
have  been  driven  as  their  last  resort,  by  the 
force  of  that  higher  reason  which  Christianity 
inspires  and  has  wielded  against  their  infidelity, 
it  is  enough  to  say,  that  they  now  reject  the 
truth  of  Christianity  for  the  same  reason,  that 
they  reject  the   truth  of   every  thing  besides. 


MODERN    THEOLOGY.  95 

They  professedly  believe  nothing^  and  conse- 
quently acknowledge  that  they  knoiv  nothing. 
But  how  they  happen  to  know  even  this,  is  as 
great  a  mystery  as  any  thing  they  Intend  to 
deny;  for  the  hardest  passage  of  Scripture  for 
an  infidel  to  admit  to  be  true,  is  that  of  their 
strongest  antagonist,  who  says,  in  speaking  of 
such  pretenders  to  wisdom:  '^Professing  them- 
selves to  he  ivise^  they  hecame  fools.'''  And  now, 
since  infidels  virtually  admit  this,  it  is  time  that 
infidelity  and  its  trade  be  abandoned.  Both 
have  expended  themselves. 


96  MERGERSBURa    AND 


CHAPTER  TIL 


§  25. — THE    PULPIT — PREACHING. 

tCCORDING  to  modern  theology,  as  seen 
all  along,  every  thing  has  to  be  proved 
in  order  to  produce  what  is  mistaken  for 
faith,  belief.  The  preacher  is  accord- 
ingly in  the  position  of  the  lawyer, 
whose  business  it  is  to  state  his  case  to  the  judg- 
ment of  his  audience,  to  furnish  his  evidences 
and  argue  the  case,  in  order  to  produce  convic- 
tion in  the  minds  of  those  who  hear  him.  This 
being  the  great  end  and  object  of  the  Pulpit,  he 
is  educated  and  prepared  mainly  with  a  view  of 
becoming  an  able  minister  in  the  sense  here  pre- 
sented. He  is  considered  the  ablest  minister 
accordingly,  who  can  compress  the  greatest  in- 
tellectual treat  into  his  sermon  bearing  on  the 


MODERN    THEOLOGY.  97 

truth  of  his  proposition,  which  he  strives  to 
prove  and  establish,  by  all  the  evidences,  the  ar- 
guments and  eloquence  of  an  intellect  of  the 
first  capacity — no  matter  whether  a  single  word 
be  addressed  to  faith  and  the  heart,  or  not; 
for  it  is  not  with  the  heart,  but  with  the  intel- 
lect that  men  believe  unto  righteousness,  ac- 
cording to  the  theory  of  religion  on  which  such 
preaching  and  its  theology  are  based.  Our 
higher  spiritual  nature  is  entirely  ignored,  and 
no  attempt  is  made  to  present  the  gospel  to  its 
apprehension. 

According  to  Mercersburg  theology,  the  true 
idea  of  preaching  the  gospel  is,  to  proclaim  it, 
not  to  prove  it;  to  let  it  speak  for  itself,  not  to 
defend  it ;  to  teach  and  explain  it,  not  to  declaim 
about  it — in  a  word,  to  present  it  as  self-evident 
to  faith,  to  our  higher  spiritual  nature,  not  to 
reduce  it  to  the  apprehension  of  the  bare  un- 
derstanding. The  first  great  business  of  the 
preacher  is  to  open  the  eyes  of  the  blind — those 
spiritual  eyes  blinded  by  sin — by  applying  the 
gospel  to  them,  until  man  wakes  up  to  his  proper 
7 


98  MEKCERSBURG   AND 

self-consciousness,  "wliicli  implies  a  consciousness 
of  his  higher  spiritual   nature:   the  God-con- 
sciousness within  him :   the  consciousness  of  sin 
and  guilt;   the  consciousness  of  the  need  of  re- 
demption;  the  sense  of  justice,  of  holiness;   the 
longing  and  desires  of  the  heart  for  re-union  and 
re-communion  with  God  and  the  Paradise  which 
is  not  found  in  the  beggarly  elements  of  this 
present  world ; — in  other  words,  to  lay  open  to 
him  the  higher   law   of  his   own  nature,   that 
speaks  to  him  of  his  divine  origin,  of  a  God  of 
justice,  of  righteousness,  of  a  judgment  to  come, 
of  the  need  of  reconciliation,  of  pardon,  ot  re- 
demption, of  longings  for  re-union  with  God  and 
a  world  of  future  happiness ; — and  then,  in  the 
second  place,   reveal    to    tliis   higher  nature — 
these  opened  spiritual  eyes — the  God  in  Christ, 
the  story  of  the  fall,  the  story  of  redemption 
and  the  Paradise  regained  and  re-established  in 
the  kingdom  of  Christ ; — and  show  how  fully  the 
revelations  and  provisions  of  the  gospel  explain 
and  meet  all  the  wants,  the  desires  and  longings 
of  that  better,  liigher  n'ature.     Tlic  gcspel,  thus 


MODERN    THEOLOGY.  99 

applied  and  presented  immediately  to  our  spirit- 
ual nature,  becomes  self-evident  to  it,  and  is  ap- 
prehended by  faith,  which  gives  us  an  absolute 
certainty  of  its  truth,  which  no  amount  of  evi- 
dence and  argument  addressed  to  the  under- 
standing or  logical  reason,  can  ever  produce. 


§  26. — THE   ALTAR. — WORSHIP. 

To  awaken  man  to  his  proper  self-consci- 
ousness, it  is  not  enough  to  'preach;  but  it  is 
necessary  also  to  ^:>ra?/,  that  God's  Spirit  may 
aid  in  the  work ;  for  without  Ilim  we  can  do 
nothing.  Hence,  according  to  Mercersburg 
theology,  the  Altar,  as  well  as  the  Pulpit,  finds 
its  appropriate  place  and  significance  in  the 
house  of  God.  In  coming  to  hear  the  word 
preached,  man  must  be  made  to  feel  that  he  is 
coming  to  the  house  of  God,  which  is  the  house 
of  prayer;  and  the  more  deeply  he  is  im- 
pressed with  this  feeling,  and  the  more  solemnly 
the  worship  of  God  is  conducted,  and  confession 
of  sin  and  the  Christinn  faith  is  made  and  de- 


100  MERCERSBURG   AND 

voutly  responded  to,  the  more  deeply  will  he  be 
affected  by  an  invisible  presence,  that  thus  aids 
in  awakening  in  him  the  slumbering  conscious- 
ness of  his  own  spiritual  nature,  by  which  he 
becomes  better  prepared  to  hear  and  receive 
the  gospel  addressed  to  him  from  the  Pulpit. 
What  is  true  here  in  reference  to  him  who  is  yet 
out  of  Christ,  is  equally  true  of  the  Christian, 
who  is  to  be  built  up  in  the  faith  and  knowledge 
of  the  truth,  by  the  same  divinely  appointed 
means. 

Modern  theology,  ignoring  man's  higher  spi- 
ritual nature,  is  but  consistent  with  itself,  when 
it  ignores  the  Altar  and  its  solemn  services,  and 
puts  it  entirely  out  of  the  house  of  God !  What 
public  worship  there  is,  is  done  in  the  pulpit  and 
the  end  gallery  by  a  choir  of  undevout  young 
people,  who  sing  undevotional  hymns  to  unde- 
votional  tunes;  and  the  prayer  in  the  pulpit 
partakes  of  the  undevotional  smartness  and  in- 
tellectualism,  which  characterize  the  whole  ser- 
vice, preaching  and  all.  The  singing,  the  pray- 
ing, the  preaching,  and  the  hearing  are  all  by 


MODERN  THEOLOGY.     "  101 

the  understanding  and  for  the  understanding — 
not  by  the  spirit  and  heart,  and  for  them.  Even 
the  central  idea  of  worship,  the  holy  sacrament 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  is  reduced  to 
the  same  common  level  of  the  mere  understand- 
ino;.  There  is  nothinoj  in  the  whole  service,  from 
beginning  to  end,  for  immediate  faith  to  lay  hold 
upon.  Every  thing  is  calculated  to  produce  be- 
liefs or  something  less  valuable  than  that;  but 
nothing  is  calculated  to  produce /aiYA. 


§  27. — THE    KEYS. — DISCIPLINE. 

According  to  Mercersburg  Theology,  the 
ministry  combines  not  only  the  prophetic  and 
priestly,  but  also  the  kingly  office  of  Christ,  to 
which  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  are 
given  for  substantially  the  same  purpose  for 
which  its  prophetic  and  priestly  functions  are 
intended;  namely,  to  bring  men  to  a  proper 
sense  or  consciousness  of  their  relation  to  God, 
and  divine  and  spiritual  things.     By  virtue  of 


102  MERCERSBURG   AND 

this  office,  the  minister  of  Christ  is  clothed  to 
speak  and  act  with  divine  authority  in  rebuking 
sin  and  comforting  believers.  When  exercised, 
as  it  ever  should  be,  in  the  same  spirit  of  an  as- 
sured faith  in  which  the  prophetic  and  priestly 
functions  are  to  be  exercised  and  addressed,  and 
applied  to  the  same  higher  nature  in  man,  it  has 
an  additional  powerful  effect  to  aid  in  awakening 
it  to  proper  consciousness.  How  reviving  and 
strengthening  to  the  penitent's  trembling  faith, 
and  comforting  to  the  troubled  spirit  are,  for 
instance,  the  solemnly  uttered  words  of  comfort 
and  assurance  coming  from  the  lips  of  a  minister 
of  Christ,  who  speaks  with  conscious  authority 
in  the  name  of  God.  The  Gospel  of  our  salva- 
tion, thus  applied  to  man's  spiritual  nature,  by 
the  proper  exercise  of  the  prophetic,  priestly 
and  kingly  functions  of  the  ministry,  will  prove 
''a  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  all  them  that 
believe,  to  the  Jew  first  and  also  to  the  Greek." 
Modern  theology  has  explained  away  all  di- 
vine and  immediate  force  in  this  function  of  the 
ministry,  as  well  as  in  that  of  the  others.     Its 


MODERN    THEOLOGY.  103 

exercise  carries  with  it  no  immediate  force  to  the 
conciousness  of  man.  Its  cold  comfort  addressed 
to  the  understandino;  and  intellio-ence,  does  not 
reach  and  comfort  the  troubled  spirit  and  heal 
the  broken  heart.  Its  intellectual  comfort  is 
nothing  but  untempered  mortar,  and  the  peni- 
tent and  mourning  soul  leaves  the  house  of  God 
with  no  assurance  of  faith  and  no  solid  comfort, 
to  seek  it  elsewhere  the  best  way  it  can,  or  re- 
main without  it. 


§  28. — CONFIRMATION. 

According  to  Mercersburg  theology,  the  rite 
of  confirmation,  or  laying  on  of  hands,  is  one  of 
those  ministerial  acts,  which  is  divinely  intended 
to  confirm  and  strengthen  the  faith  of  the  be- 
liever. In  baptism  we  are  brought  into  cove- 
nant and  gracious  relation  to  God,  and  after  the 
consciousness  of  this  relation  is  properly  devel- 
oped by  the  hearing  of  the  word  (catechisation), 
it  is  confirmed  and  ratified  by  the  laying  on  of 
hands,  as  the  completion  of  the  rite  of  baptism, 


104  MERCERSBURG    AND 

as  initiatory  to  full  communion  with  the  Church, 
and  preparatory  to  admission  to  the  Lord's  table, 
all  of  which  have  the  great  object  in  view  of 
awakening  and  strengthening  a  full  assurance 
of  faith  or  conscious  union  and  communion  with 
God  in  Christ  Jesus. 

Modern  theology  is  here  again  consistent  with 
itself,  when  it  rejects  the  rite  of  confirmation  as 
useless.  It  adds  nothing  to  strengthen  mere 
belief.  If  faith  is  nothing  more  than  an  intel- 
lectual assent  of  the  mind,  then  of  course  the 
laying  on  of  hands  has  nothing  to  do  in  produc- 
ing or  confirming  it.  But  the  same  is  equally 
true  with  regard  to  baptism  and  the  Lord's  sup- 
per. They  do  not  and  are  not  intended  to  pro- 
duce or  confirm  belief  and  might  just  as  well  be 
rejected  as  the  Altar  and  the  laying  on  of  hands, 
for  aught  effect  they  have  in  convicting  the  mere 
understanding.  To  appreciate  the  sense  and 
meaning  of  Confirmation,  it  must  be  viewed  in 
the  light  of  faith,  as  must  every  thing  else  con- 
nected with  the  Gospel. 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  105 

According  to  modern  tlieology  and  its  prac- 
tical application,  the  reception  or  recognition  of 
a  person  in  full  communion  and  membership 
with  the  Christian  Church,  is  not  to  be  per- 
formed and  signalized  by  any  solemn  ministerial 
act,  as  carrying  with  it  any  spiritual  force  and 
meaning  to  the  faith  and  consciousness  of  the 
person  admitted.  He  is  simply  acknowledged 
as  a  full  member  of  the  Church  on  confession  of 
his  belief,  so  that  it  may  be  u7iderstood  by  all 
whom  it  may  concern,  that  he  is  entitled  to  all 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  full  membership. 
Here,  again,  all  is  simply  for  the  understanding, 
and  nothing  for  faith.  His  admission  into  the 
Church,  has  not  brought  him  into  a  nearer  or 
more  conscious  relation  to  Christ  and  the  kinnr- 

o 

dom  of  God,  than  he  had  been  in  before.  He  has 
simply  "joined  the  Church,"  as  he  would  any 
other  purely  human  association,  and  when  he 
becomes  tired  of  it,  will  "leave  the  Church" 
with  as  little  conscious  loss  as  he  had  of  any 
conscious  gain  in  "joining"  it. 


106  MERCERSBUilG   AND 

§  29. THE    WITNESS    OF   THE    SPIRIT. 

The  witness  of  the  Spirit,  according  to  mo- 
dern theology,  is  supposed  to  supersede  every 
thing  else,  to  give  us  that  full  assurance  of  faith 
attainable  in  this  life.  It  is  something  super- 
added to  faith,  by  which  we  are  divinely  assured 
of  being  in  a  state  of  grace.  This  assumes,  that 
faith  does  not  in  itself  carry  with  it  that  divine 
assurance,  which  it  of  course  does  not,  if  faith 
be  nothing  more  than  belief.  Hence  what  is 
wanted  is  not  something  to  be  superadded  to 
faith,  but  faith  itself;  the  very  thing  on  which 
Mercersburg  theology  insists.  What  is  called 
the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  is,  after  all,  according 
to  modern  theology,  nothing  more  than  some- 
thing purely  subjective,  either  of  an  intellectual 
or  emotional  nature;  for  it  is  simply  absurd  to 
speak  of  the  witness  of  God's  Spirit  to  our 
spirits,  when  it  is  denied  that  we  have  a  spiritual 
nature.  By  "our  spirit,"  nothing  more  is  meant 
than  our  intellectual  or  emotional  nature,  and 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  107 

what  is  called  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  turns  out, 
in  most  instances,  to  be  nothing  more  than  the 
natural  reaction  of  that  nature  from  a  state  of 
painful  distress,  into  which  it  had  been  worked. 
According  to  Mercersburg  theology,  faith  is 
itself  the  evidence  or  authentication  of  things 
not  seen,  and  therefore  carries  within  itself  that 
divine  assurance.      The  Spirit  of  Crod  speaks  in 
the  Gospel  of  His  Son,  and  in  His  sacred  ordi- 
nances and  the  official  acts  of  His  ministers,  im- 
mediately/  to  our  spirits,  and  the  apprehension  of 
what  God's  Spirit  witnesses  and  reveals  to  our 
spirits,  that  is  faith.     The  witness  of  the  Spirit 
is  therefore  not  superadded  to  faith,  but  is  the 
revelation  of  the  Spirit  of  Truth  to  faith;  not 
simply  in  reference  to  our  being  in  a  state  of 
grace  or  our  own  immediate  relation  to  God,  but 
.  Iso  in  reference  to  the  whole  truth  of  the  gospel. 
In   reference   to    our  immediate  relation    to 
Christ,  faith  has. been  well  defined  as  the  Chris- 
tian self -consciousness,  by  which  we  know  that 
we  are  Christians,  with  as  much  certainty  as  we 
know  that  we  are  human  beings  by  our  natural 


108  MERCERSBURG   AND 

self-consciousness.     That  the  awakeninor  to  a  full 

o 

consciousness  of  our  gracious  relation  to  God  in 
Christ  may  be  sudden,  and  be  accompanied  with 
unspeakable  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  not  only 
true,  but  natural,  when  the  transition  from  un- 
belief to  faith,  from  darkness  to  light,  is  sudden, 
as  was  the  case  in  the  extraordinary  conversion 
of  St.  Paul. 


MODERN  THEOLOGY.  109 


CHAPTER  VIIL 


§  30. — DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

HE  point  of  difference  between  modern 
>)->    and  Mercersburg  theology  on  this  fun- 


damental doctrine  of  Christianity,  does 
not  refer  so  much  to  the  doctrine  itself, 
as  to  its  relation  to  faith  and  the  evi- 
dence on  which  its  truth  is  founded ;  for  which 
reason  it  here  follows,  and  does  not  precede 
the  consideration  of  the  nature  of  faith  and 
evidence. 

To  establish  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  we 
must,  according  to  modern  theology,  rely  exclu- 
sively on  certain  passages  of  Scripture,  in  which 
it  is  implied,  or  in  which  divine  and  distinct  per- 
sonal attributes  are  ascribed  to  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost.  Being  incomprehensible  to  the 
finite  mind,  its  truth  must  be  accepted  on  the 


110  MERCERSBURG   AND 

bare  testimony  of  the  Bible.  Faith  in  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  is,  therefore,  nothing  more 
than  an  assent  of  the  mind  on  the  strength  of 
such  testimony.  A  specious  fallacy,  which  con- 
tains but  a  single  truth  to  redeem  it  from  being 
false  throughout.  That  truth  is  its  acknowledged 
mystery. 

According  to  Mercersburg  theology,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  is  every  where  presupposed 
in  the  New  Testament,  as  resting  primarily  on 
a  divine  manifestation  or  revelation  lying  back 
of  the  written  word,  which  refers  to  it  but  inci- 
dentally and  impliedly,  as  existing  objective  truth 
already  apprehended  as  self-evident  to  faith,  and 
does  not,  therefore,  labor  to  prove  it,  or  even  to 
state  it  in  a  direct  and  formal  way. 

The  Christian  idea  of  the  Trinity,  like  all 
other  Christian  ideas  and  truths,  finds,  in  the 
first  place,  a  basis  in  the  constitution  of  the 
world's  life,  or  in  our  own  nature,  which  responds 
to  and  apprehends  by  faith  as  self-evident,  the 
revealed  fact  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  as  it  does  that 
of  the  incarnation  or  any  other  revealed  truth, 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  Ill 

"wliich  are  all  alike  incomprehensible  to  the  mere 
understandinor. 

o 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  does  not  rest  pri- 
marily on  any  passages  of  the  Bible,  from  which 
alone  its  truth  could  be  established.  To  find  the 
full  and  proper  evidence  of  this  doctrine,  we 
must  go  behind  the  written  word,  and  find  it  in 
the  self-evidencing/actitself,  that  God  has  man- 
ifested and  continues  to  manifest  himself  as  a 
Triune  Being  to  the  general  life  of  humanity  in 
the  great  work  of  the  world's  redemption,  and 
which  ever  repeats  itself  to  the  consciousness  in 
the  experience  and  life  of  every  individual  Chris- 
tian or  subject  of  that  salvation.  It  is  thus  as 
much  an  object  of  faith^  in  the  true  and  proper 
sense  of  the  word,  and  not  merely  an  object  of 
doctrinal  heltefy  as  any  other  divine  and  super- 
natural realit}^  the  truth  of  which  enters  into 
the  Christian  consciousness,  being  apprehended 
as  self-evident  by  faith. 

Modern  theology  rests  on  the  same  false  as- 
sumption in  regard  to  the  Trinity,  which  it  oc- 
cupies in  regard  to  the  Incarnation.     Both  facts 


112  MERCERSBURG   AND 

are  made  to  hold  a  purely  outside  relation  to  the 
world's  life  and  that  of  individuals,  and  do  not 
enter  into  the  constitution  of  that  life  in  a  real 
and  living  way  to  work  out  its  salvation.  Hence 
the  evidence  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  depends 
equally  on  outside  testimony  alone,  on  the 
strength  of  which  mere  belief,  at  best,  is  attain- 
able. But  our  baptismal  relation  to  God  the 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  is  in  itself  suffici- 
ent to  set  aside  the  false  assumption  of  modern 
theology  on  this  point.  That  relation  is  a  solemn 
guarantee,  that  God  enters  into  the  work  of  our 
personal  salvation  as  a  Triune  Being,  and  that 
he  will  reveal  or  manifest  himself  as  such  to  the 
faith  and  consciousness  of  all,  in  whom  the  work 
of  salvation  is  begun  and  carried  forward  to  its 
completion. 

The  relation  here  referred  to  corresponds  with 
the  original  relation  and  divine  image  in  which 
man  was  created.  It  held  in  reference  to  God 
as  a  Triune  Being,  the  shadow  and  type  of  wliich 
still  remain  amidst  the  ruin  of  his  fall,  in  the 
constitution  of  his  own  nature  and  the  divinely 


MODERN    THEOLOGY.  113 

appointed  natural  relations  of  his  earthly  life; 
and  when  his  right  relation  to  God  is  again  re- 
stored by  the  Christian  salvation,  it  will  be  found 
to  consist  in  a  conscious  and  proper  relation  to 
God  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  each  of 
whom  in  unity  have  their  peculiar  work  to  do  in 
the  world's  redemption,  as  well  as  in  that  of 
individuals. 

We  accordingly  find  the  manifestation  or  re 
velation  of  God  as  a  Triune  Being  to  the  world's 
life,  to  fall  into  three  grand  world  historical  pe- 
riods, answering  to  the  trinity  of  the  world's  own 
proper  life.  The  manifestation  of  God  the  Father 
falls  within  the  period  of  the  world's  childhood 
and  youth,  in  which  the  parental  and  filial  rela- 
tion between  God  and  the  race  becomes  manifest. 
The  manifestation  of  God  the  Sou  falls  in  the 
central  period  of  the  world's  history,  at  the  point 
at  which  its  life  had  reached  its  ripened  natural 
manhood.  It  was  then,  and  not  before,  that  the 
Son  of  God  himself  became  Man, — our  Brother, 
and  established  the  fraternal  relation  between 
himself  and  the  race.    The  third  and  last  grand 


114  MERCERSBURG    AND 

period  is  that  of  the  manifestation  of  God  the 
Holy  Ghost,  by  which  the  new  race  is  brought 
into  livino;  union  or  marriao;e  relation  to  God. 
The  Trinity  in  our  natural  human  life,  and  in 
our  divinely  appointed  relations  in  life — the 
filial,  the  fraternal  and  the  marriage  relations — 
finds  its  true  sense  and  meaning  in  our  three- 
fold relations  to  God  the  Father,  who  adopts  us 
as  his  children;  to  God  the  Son,  who  becomes 
our  elder  brother ;  and  to  God  the  Holy  Ghost, 
by  whom  our  marriage  relation  to  God  is  con- 
summated. All  this  enters  into  the  conscious 
experience  of  the  general,  as  well  as  the  indivi- 
dual life  of  the  race  as  redeemed  through  the 
Christian  salvation,  and  hence  we  must  seek  in 
Christianity  itself  the  proper  evidence  of  the 
doctrine  in  question,  and  not  in  any  thing  lying 
outside  of  it  and  beyond  it. 

§  31. — THE    DISTINCT     PERSONALITIES. — THE 
ETERNAL    SONSHIP. 

Modern  theology  holds  to  the  distinct  person- 
alities,  and  that  Christ  is  the  natural  and  eternal 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  115 

Son  of  God,  having  a  distinct  personality  from 
the  Father.  The  truth  of  this  doctrine,  however, 
can  be  established  only  by  the  teachings  of  the 
Bible  on  evidences  lying  outside  of  Christianity, 
and  consequently  can  challenge  simply  the  assent 
of  our  judgment.  It  is  thus  left  an  object  of 
speculation  or  belief,  and  not  an  object  of  faith, 
or  absolute  certainty. 

According  to  Mercersburg  theology,  the  eter- 
nal sonship,  or  the  distinct  personality  of  the 
Son  of  God,  is  an  object  of  faith  or  absolute 
certainty,  as  well  as  any  other  supernatural  re- 
ality revealed  to  mnn. 

With  regard  to  the  distinct  personality  of  the 
Father,  there  is  no  question  among  those  who 
believe  in  a  personal  God.  He  is  not  only  the 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Avho  is  the  na- 
tural and  eternal  Son  of  God,  but  he  is  unques- 
tionably also  Our  Father,  by  creation  and  adop- 
tion. As  such  He  can  never  become  any  thinor 
else  to  us!  He^  our  Father,  can  never  become 
our  Brother.  In  order  that  Crod  may  become 
our  Brother  J  there  must  of  necessity  be  a  natural 


116  MERCERSBURG   AND 

and  eternal   Son  of  God,  as  a  distinct  person 
from  the  Father. 

The  truth  of  the  distinct  personality  of  the 
Son  of  God,  therefore,  finds  its  response  in  the 
constitution  and  necessity  of  our  own  nature, 
^Yhich  is  created  for  just  such  a  fraternal  as  well 
as  filial  relation;  the  full  sense  and  meaning  of 
which  is  not  realized,  but  simply  foreshadowed 
by  its  relations  to  the  creature  in  the  sphere  of 
our  natural  life.  As  a  man's  natural  father  is 
of  necessity  a  distinct  person  from  his  brother, 
so  God  our  Father,  and  God  our  Brother  cannot 
be  resolved  simply  into  a  different  manifestation 
and  relation  of  the  same  person,  without  involv- 
ing a  figment  and  a  contradiction  repugnant  to 
all  right  feeling  implanted  in  our  nature.  To 
come  to  our  right  relation  to  God,  as  foresha- 
dowed in  the  constitution  of  our  nature  and  the 
life  of  the  world,  we  must  learn  to  know  and  to 
love  God,  not  simply  as  our  Father,  but  also  as 
our  Brother,  and  not  simply  as  Father  and 
Brother,  but  enter  into  that  higher  and  purer 
joy  and  love  in  that  still  closer  and  holier  rela- 


MODERN  THEOLOGY.  117 

tion  with  God,  which  is  typified  by  the  marriage 
reLation.  This  trinity  of  relations  can  only  hold 
with  a  trinity  of  persons  in  the  divine  Being,  to 
meet  the  demands  and  wants  of  our  nature.  The 
truth  of  the  distinct  personalities  thus  enters 
into  the  Christian  consciousness,  with  the  same 
full  assurance  of  faith,  as  any  other  truth  is  ap- 
prehended by  faith;  amounting  not  simply  to 
doctrinal  belief,  but  to  absolute  certainty. 

In  confirmation  of  what  we  have  already  said, 
we  will  yet  add,  that  the  whole  truth  here  pre- 
sented rests  ultimately  in  the  nature  of  Cfod 
himself  as  revealed  to  us  in  the  moral  law, 
which  is,  at  the  same  time,  the  law  of  our  own 
nature,  the  law  of  love  to  God  and  Man.  All 
the  duties  required  by  the  law  of  love  to  our 
fellow  men  are  comprehended  in  the  filial,  the 
fraternal  and  marriage,  or  parental  relation, 
comprehending,  at  the  same  time,  the  whole  of 
our  life,  reaching  from  childhood  upwards,  until  it 
has  itself  ripened  into  parentage,  and  requiring 
the  totality  of  all  the  powers  of  our  being  in  its 
full  and  proper  exercise.     Love,  in  its  first  and 


118  MERCERSBURG   AND 

earliest  form,  exists  as  filial  love,  love  to  the 
authors  of  our  being,  the  protectors  and  pre- 
servers of  our  life,  who  exercise  towards  us  ne- 
cessarily, justly  and  rightfully  parental  authority, 
and  in  this  relation  prepare  us  for  the  higher 
relations  and  duties  of  life.  Developed  in  a 
higher,  freer  and  purer  form,  it  exists  as  frater- 
nal love — love  to  our  fellow  beings,  with  whom 
we  come  to  stand  related  as  our  brothers  and 
equals.  As  a  still  higher,  purer  and  holier  af- 
fection, it  is  developed  in  the  marriage  and  pa- 
rental relation,  in  which  it  reaches  its  highest 
degree  of  purity  and  perfection.  But  all  this, 
after  all,  is  but  typical  of  something  higher,  the 
fall  sense  and  meaning  of  which  is  realized  in 
our  relation  and  love  to  God,  who  of  necessity 
is  a  Triune  Being  to  be  the  author  of  a  being 
constituted  like  Man,  and  the  Giver  of  a  moral 
law,  such  as  He  has  implanted  in  our  nature. 

This  higher  sense  and*  meaning  of  our  natural 
life  is  being  reached  in  the  sphere  of  the  Chi'is- 
tian  life,  which,  though  a  higher  order  oi  life,  is 
yet  truly  human,  as  well  as  divine,  and  therefore 


JtODER^   THEOLOGY.  119 

corresponding  in  all  respects  with  the  constitu- 
tion of  our  proper  natural  life ;  and  all  the  duties 
and  privileges  of  the  Christian  life  are  compre- 
hended in  corresponding  relations,  reaching  from 
our  spiritual  childhood  upwards,  until  we  become 
incn  Siiid  fathers  in  Christ.  In  these  several  re- 
lations and  stages  of  its  development,  our  faith 
and  love  are  evolved  and  characterized  in  their 
several  degrees  or  stages  of  its  progress.  Our 
conscious  fellowship  is  with  the  Father,  and  with 
the  Son,  and  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  first 
with  the  Father,  then  with  the  Son,  and  then 
with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Each  of  these  stages  of 
the  Christian  consciousness — or  of  our  faith 
and  love — is  peculiar  and  distinctive,  and  they 
determine  the  three  prominent  types  of  Chris- 
tianity, as  these  are  found  to  exist  in  the  actual 
life  of  individual  Christians,  and  the  life  of  the 
Christian  Church. 

§  32. — THE    TRINITY    AND    THE    CHURCH. 

Modern  theology  admits  a  certain  kind  of  de- 
velopment of  the  Christian  life,  or  growth  in 


120  MERCERSBURG    AND 

the  grace  and  knowledge  of  Christ,  but  it  is  in 
full  accordance  with  its  abstract  idea  of  Chris- 
tianity and  the  Church,  which  is  at  all  times  and 
in  all  ages  universally  the  same.  The  Church 
is  not  the  embodiment  of  Christianity  in  any  real 
way;  and  consequently  no  account  is  made  of 
its  concrete  and  organic  development  under  any 
form.  The  Catholic,  the  Lutheran  and  the  Re- 
formed Churches,  as  such,  are  alike  but  human 
organizations,  and  not  truly  and  really  the  pro- 
duct of  the  life  of  Christianity.  They  are  on 
a  par  with  any  modern  sect,  that  has  sprung 
into  existence  at  the  will  and  dictation  of  a  dis- 
contented party,  without  any  historical  neces- 
sity of  any  kind. 

We  have  already  stated,  that  the  fundamental 
idea  of  the  constitution  of  our  own  nature,  cor- 
responds with  the  fundamental  idea  of  Chris-ti- 
anity.  That  idea  is  the  Trinity,  which  is  fun- 
damental to  the  whole  Christian  life,  no  less  than 
to  the  whole  system  of  Christian  doctrine.  The 
dijBTerent  manifestations  and  types  of  Christianity 
m  the  Church,  as  well  as  in  its  individual  mem- 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  121 

bers,  must  therefore  be  reducible  to  this  funda- 
mental idea.  The  facts  in  the  case,  which  are 
patent  to  every  one  who  will  examine  them,  con- 
firm the  correctness  of  this  position.  We  ac- 
cordingly find,  that  as  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost  are  distinct,  and  yet  the  one  only  true 
and  eternal  God,  so  the  three  great  branches  of 
the  Christian  Church,  the  Catholic,  the  Lutheran, 
and  Reformed,  are  equally  distinct  and  charac- 
teristic, and  yet  constitute  the  one  true  Church 
of  God  on  earth.  Each  of  them  is  truly  and 
really  the  legitimate  and  historical  product  of 
the  organic  life  of  Christianity ;  and  the  distinc- 
tive types  of  Qhristianity  which  they  present,  bear 
the  impress  of  that  distinction,  which  has  its  ulti- 
mate and  fundamental  ground  in  the  Trinity  ! 
The  legalistic  type  of  Catholic  Christianity  finds 
its  prototype  in  the  legalism  of  the  ancient 
Church,  under  the  dispensation  of  the  Father ; 
the  freer  evangelical  type  of  Lutheran  Christi- 
anity finds  its  prototype  in  the  faith  and  love  of 
the  disciples  of  Christ,  whilst  he  was  objectively 
present  with  them  on  earth,  leaningon  and  trusting 


122  MERCERSBURG    AND 

in,  as  it  does,  the  objective  Christ — Christ  on  the 
Cross,  Christ  in  the  Word,  and  Christ  in  the 
Sacrament;  whilst  the  Reformed  type  finds  its 
prototype  in  the  more  spiritual  nature  of  early 
Christianity,  making  proper  account  of  the  ope- 
rations and  witness  of  the  Spirit,  or  the  subjec- 
tive Christ,  the  Christ  within  us.  In  view  of 
these  fundamental  characteristics,  there  is  a  true 
and  profound  meaning  in  calling  the  one  the 
Church  of  the  Father,  the  other  the  Church  of 
the  Son,  and  the  other  the  Church  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  that  these  three  are  one. 


§  33. — THE  CHURCH  OF  THE  FUTURE. 

That  this  great  fundamental  doctrine  of  Chris- 
tianity—  the  Holy  Trinity — is  underlying  the 
Christian  Church  in  its  actual  historical  devel- 
opment, and  finds  in  it  a  most  remarkable  con- 
firmation, is  self-evident  to  all  who  will  simply 
glance  at  the  actual  facts  in  the  case.  It  re- 
mains for  the  CJnirch  of  the  Future  to  realize 
their  uniti/y  as  an  equally  important  and  neces- 


MODERN   THEOLOGr.  123 

sary  historical  process,   and  the  guarantee  for 
that  future  unity  is  precisely  the  great  under- 
lying fact  of  the  presence  of  God  in  her  'as  a 
Triune  Being,  who  will  present  unto  himself  a 
Church  without  spot  and  blemish,  in  which  the 
Catholic,  the  Lutheran,  and  Reformed  idea  and 
type  of  Christianity  will  complete  each  other,  in 
that  higher  unity  and  perfection,  which  her  tri- 
nitarian  life  will  ultimately  work  out  to  com- 
pletion  in    a  regular  process   of  historical  de- 
velopment;— and  when  the  intercessory  prayer 
of  the  Saviour  will  yet  be  fully  realized:  *'Holy 
Father,   keep   through  thine  own  name   those 
whom  thou  hast  given  me,  that  they  all  may  be 
oney  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee, 
that  they  also  may  he  one  in  us,  that  the  world 
may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me;" — and  when 
the  apostolic  benediction  ^11    enter  fully  into 
the  consciousness  of  all  believers :   "The  grace 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God 
(the  Father)  and  the  communion  of  the   Holy 
Ghost,  be  with  you   all;"    and  when  our  un- 
doubted Christian  faith  will  be  universally  re- 


124  MERCERSBURG   AND 

sponded  to  in  a  deeper  and  profounder  appre- 
hension of  its  glorious  truths:  "I  believe  in 
God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of  heaven 
and  earth,  and  in  Jesus  Christ,  His  only  begot- 
ten Son,  our  Lord:  who  was  conceived  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary;  suffered 
under  Pontius  Pilate,  was  crucified,  dead,  and 
buried ;  He  descended  into  hell ;  the  third  day 
He  rose  from  the  dead ;  He  ascended  into  hea- 
ven, and  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God  the 
Father  Almighty ;  froiA  thence  he  shall  come  to 
judge  the  quick  and  the  dead.  I  believe  in  the 
Holy  Ghost,  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  the 
communion  of  saints,  the  remission  of  sins,  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  life  everlast- 
ing.    Amen." 


MODERN    THEOLOGY.  125 

NOTES. 

1.  Anthropology.  —  Locke's  empiricism  is 
older  than  Locke.  It  is  the  philosophy  of  the  ab- 
stract understanding,  underlying  the  thinking  of 
men  in  all  ages,  who  elevate  and  recognize  the 
mere  understanding  as  the  judge  in  matters  of 
faith  and  religion.  Whether  men  are  conscious 
of  the  fact,  or  willing  to  admit  it  or  not,  it  is  the 
empiricism  as  taught,  not  originated,  by  the  Eng- 
lish philosophers,  which  underlies  the  thinking 
as  this  meets  us  every  where  in  modern  theology. 
It  meets  us  more  or  less  clearly,  at  every  point 
of  contrast  which  we  have  instituted  with  that 
altogether  diflferent  mode  of  thinking,  which  un- 
derlies Mercersburg  theology,  from  first  to  last. 
It  meets  us  in  the  fact,  that  modern  theology 
reverses  the  order  of  faith  and  knowledge;  that 
it  admits  no  premises;  that  it  proceeds  without 
faith  in  any  thing;  that  it  refuses  to  accept  the 
Creed  as  a  starting-point;  that  it  professes  to 
get  its  faith  fresh  from  the  Bible,  &c.  If  this 
be  not  the  position  of  modern  theology,  then 


126  MERCERSBURG   AND 

what  is  it?  What  other  faith,  either  objective 
or  subjective,  has  it,  from  which  it  proceeds? 
What  are  the  admitted  premises,  or  self-evident 
truths  from  which  it  starts?  It  has  none  other, 
and  lays  claim  to  none  other.  It  proceeds  on 
Locke's  false  assumption,  that  it  must  and  can 
prove  every  thing  bj  outside  evidence.  What- 
ever has  become  of  Locke's  philosophy  among 
philosophers,  it  is  still  the  underlying  principle 
of  the  modern  theological  habit  of  thought.  That 
Locke  has  been  superseded  by  other  philosophers, 
either  for  the  worse  or  the  better,  decides  nothing 
in  regard  to  the  question,  What  philosophy  un- 
derlies modern  theology?  Theology  is  not  re- 
constructed every  decade,  to  suit  itself  to  every 
new  system  of  philosophy  that  starts  into  exist- 
ence. -Locke's  system  will  never  cease  to  be  the 
controlling  principle  and  habit  of  modern  think- 
ing, as  long  as  the  bare  understanding  is  recog- 
nized as  the  umpire  in  matters  of  faith  and  re- 
ligion. 

2.  Federal  Headship. — We  did  not,  and  do 
not  deny,  that  modern  theology  teaches  a  certain 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  127 

kind  of  federal  headship  of  Christ;  but  it  is  in 
full  accordance  with  its  peculiar  views  of  Chris- 
tianity on  other  points.  It  resolves  the  federal 
headship  of  Christ  into  a  mere  abstraction.  Ap- 
prehending Christ  as  a  mere  individual,  he  be- 
comes the  surety  in  law  for  a  race  that  stands 
outside  of  him,  and  to  which  he  stands  related 
in  the  constitution  of  his  own  person  simply  as 
an  individual,  and  not  as  its  actual  source  and 
fountain.  According  to  Mercersburg  theology, 
Christ  is  the  federal  head  of  the  race  by  virtue 
of  what  he  is  in  the  constitution  and  law  of  his 
own  person,  as  the  actual  source  and  fountain  of 
the  race  as  redeemed  in  him.  It  is  only  thus 
that  an  actual  parallel  is  established  between 
the  first  and  the  second  Adam,  and  that  the  one 
can  take  the  law  place  of  the  other.  The  at- 
tempt to  establish  a  parallel  between  them,  by 
resolving  the  federal  headship  of  the  first  pro- 
genitor of  the  race  into  a  similar  abstraction,  is 
in  contradiction  to  the  fact,  that  Adam's  sin  is 
imputed  to  his  posterity,  because  they  are  actual- 
ly involved  in  it,  by  virtue  of  their  having  been 


128  MERCERSBUPvG    AND 

comprehended  in  his  person  when  he  sinned  and 
fell.  The  idea  is  a  mere  figment,  that  Adam 
entered  into  a  covenant  with  a  law  outside  of  the 
constitution  of  his  own  person,  in  order  to  com- 
promit  his  posterity  in  any  thing ;  nor  could  the 
justice  of  the  law  accept  any  such  arbitrary  and 
abstract  arrangement.  Adam  has  not  made,  and 
was  not  capable  of  making,  such  a  covenant  for 
his  posterity.  He  sinned  and  fell,  and  in  doing 
so,  he  not  simply  yiolated  the  objective  law,  but 
the  law  of  his  own  being,  and  thus  involved  his 
posterity  in  the  ruin  of  his  fall,  and  its  conse- 
quences. 

3.  Partaking  of  the  Humanity  of  Christ. — 
ft  is  claimed  in  favor  of  modern  theology,  that 
it  does  not  repudiate  as  obsolete  the  doctrine 
that  believers  partake  of  the  humanity  of  Christ, 
b3cause  it  teaches  that  believers  have  part  in  his 
Spirit.  But  who  does  not  know,  that  it  so  sepa- 
rates the  two,  as  to  teach  that  we  can  have  part 
in  his  Spirit,  without  having  part  in  his  huma- 
nity? That  we  cannot  have  part  in  his  Spirit, 
without  at  the  same  time  partaking  of  his  huma- 


MODERN   THEOLOGY.  129 

nitv,  is  what    Mercersburg   theology,  and  not 
what  modern  theology  teaches. 

4.  Justification. — The  attempt  is  futile  to 
prove,  that  modern  theology  agrees  with  Mer- 
cersburg theology  in  its  teaching  in  regard  to 
justification.  As  long  as  it  is  denied,  that  we 
have  part  in  the  humanity  of  Christ,  justifica- 
tion on  account  of  his  merits  is  a  mere  abstrac- 
tion, an  outward  imputation,  without  any  parti- 
cipation in  them  in  fact:  no  difference  how  men 
may  word  their  language  to  express  it,  by  which 
they  only  deceive  themselves  and  others.  If 
modern  theology  teaches  that  we  have  part  in 
Christ's  humanity,  why  does  it  not  say  so ;  why 
not  speak  it  out  in  plain  and  unmistakable  lan- 
guage? The  reason  is,  because  it  does  not  be- 
lieve, nor  teach  any  thing  of  the  kind. 

5.  Our  Reviewer. — The  foregoing  notes  co- 
ver the  ground  so  far  as  a  writer  in  the  3Ies8en- 
gcr^  whom  we  take  to  be  Dr.  B.,  thought  proper 
to  review  our  articles.  With  those  notes  ap- 
pended and  read  in  connection  with  the  series, 
we  submit  whether  any  of  the  Reviewer's  excep- 


130  MERCERSBUEG   AND 

tions  are  well  taken,  and  whether  he  was  justi- 
fiable in  displaying  his  want  of  courtesy  towards 
us  personally.  We  think,  that  as  a  gentleman, 
he  owes  us,  as  well  as  the  Church,  an  apology, 
for  the  spirit  and  manner  which  he  allowed  him- 
self to  betray. 

We  would  here  take  occasion  to  say,  that  our 
object,  in  writing  this  treatise,  was  not  to  pro- 
voke a  newspaper  controversy.  Our  object  was 
stated  in  the  introduction ;  but  if  any  one,  who 
took  exceptions  to  any  part  of  it,  when  it  first 
appeared  in  the  columns  of  the  Messenger^  would 
have  been  kind  enough  to  point  out  any  actual 
misrepresentations,  we  would  have  been  thank- 
ful for  the  correction,  because  we  had  contem- 
plated its  publication  in  a  more  permanent  form, 
and  would  have  been  glad  to  correct  any  thing 
that  was  founded  on  a  misconception  of  the  actual 
truth  which  we  have  endeavored  to  present.  But 
our  Reviewer  has  failed  to  convince  us  that  any 
of  his  exceptions  were  well  taken;  nor  do  we 
think  that  he  himself,  on  reflection,  can  be  of 
that  opinion. 


MODERN    THEOLOGY.  181 

We  would,  in  conclusion,  simply  remind  our 
Reviewer,  that  his  charges  of  misrepresentations, 
&c.,  if  well  founded,  hold  against  Dr.  Hodge  and 
other  champions  of  modern  theology,  rather  than 
against  us.  Get  these  gentlemen  to  say,  that 
there  is  no  difference  between  modern  and  Mer- 
cersburg  theology  on  the  points  contrasted  in 
our  articles !  No,  they  are  much  too  consistent 
to  do  any  thing  of  the  kind.  If  they  are  ever 
convinced  of  the  truth  of  Mercersburg  theology, 
which  they  have  been  combating,  they  will  not, 
we  trust,  set  up  the  claim,  that  they  and  their 
system  of  theology  have  been  teaching  the  same 
thing  all  along ;  nor  can  we  see  how  any  minis- 
ter of  our  Church  will  exalt  himself  in  their 
opinion,  ivho  will  forget  himself  and  what  is  due 
to  his  oivn  Church,  so  far  as  to  do  it  for  them  ! 


Date  Due 


f^i 


t\^m 


IN  U.  S.  A. 


